Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
Doesn't this violate Canadian Sovereignty??
... you mean in the way that all of our many treaties with the U.S. do?
I'm not sure I really want to think through what this treaty entails.
The first thing I can contemplate would be lawsuits against Canadian environmental, food safety, drug safety, and product safety laws that prevent imports of Chinese products that contain lethal contents such as lead and melamine.
Doesn't this violate Canadian Sovereignty??
... you mean in the way that all of our many treaties with the U.S. do?
We don't need treaties to violate your sovereignty. Just your compliant resignation.
I'm not sure I really want to think through what this treaty entails.
The first thing I can contemplate would be lawsuits against Canadian environmental, food safety, drug safety, and product safety laws that prevent imports of Chinese products that contain lethal contents such as lead and melamine.
... like that ban on American milk because it's full of growth hormones.
All minor annoyances compared to what they could do. Sue Canada because they own a lot of oil sand companies and the public won't approve a pipeline to deliver THEIR oil to China...
I'm not sure I really want to think through what this treaty entails.
The first thing I can contemplate would be lawsuits against Canadian environmental, food safety, drug safety, and product safety laws that prevent imports of Chinese products that contain lethal contents such as lead and melamine.
... like that ban on American milk because it's full of growth hormones.
Stay away from California Dairy then lol. Go to Wisconsin which offers growth hormone free dairy.
'The Secret?? Man I'm getting pretty goddam sick of the mushroom treatment, no matter who's in power!
Standard stuff, sadly.
That's a standard clause in trade agreements. It goes by several names. "Non-tariff barriers to trade." If the country deems some law you've passed to be a way of impding access to the Canadian market they can sue. Ethyl Corp did this to Canada when we tried to ban MMT, a gasoline additive. The conern was that its effects were simialr to tetraethyl lead (also made by Ethly Corp, and whihc had recently been banned). Caada had to withdraw the ban and pay EthlyCorp around 13 million dollars. The US got screwed when it tried to make companies label their cans if they caught tiuna in nets (because the by catch in tuna nets is horrific, and because lost tuna nets, or "phantom nets" wreak horrible destruction in the sea). Mexico sued under NAFTA and won.
Standard stuff, sadly.
I can see if it's for some new law that's enacted that has an intended deleterious impact on their investments over here. I'm just hoping it's not also for existing laws.
And the whole "secret tribunal" thing bothers me. Is that standard stuff too?
That's a standard clause in trade agreements. It goes by several names. "Non-tariff barriers to trade." If the country deems some law you've passed to be a way of impding access to the Canadian market they can sue. Ethyl Corp did this to Canada when we tried to ban MMT, a gasoline additive. The conern was that its effects were simialr to tetraethyl lead (also made by Ethly Corp, and whihc had recently been banned). Caada had to withdraw the ban and pay EthlyCorp around 13 million dollars. The US got screwed when it tried to make companies label their cans if they caught tiuna in nets (because the by catch in tuna nets is horrific, and because lost tuna nets, or "phantom nets" wreak horrible destruction in the sea). Mexico sued under NAFTA and won.
Standard stuff, sadly.
So now the companies don't have to label tuna cans 'caught with net' because
of the Mexicans, who probably use nets for everything ?
Good deal.
I am not a Lawyer, but this seems like a pretty standard part of Trade Agreements. As I recall, NAFTA even has similar terms or at least procedures for 1 country to sue another for resolution of a Trade conflict.
NAFTA's clause was meant to protect the US and Canada from Mexico's habit of protecting industries from takeovers by propping them up with government funds. It was turned around and used against the government by business.