As a result of the long-haul efforts, a bilateral invest-ment treaty was signed by China and Canada. Due to the inability to com-plete its domestic ratification procedure on the Canadian part, the treaty, which is supposed to facilitate the investment relationship between the two countries, is pending for its due effect. Contrary to the general expectation of Chinese scholars, prospective investors and possibly Chinese officials in-volved, there emerged arguments in Canada that the treaty warrants closer scrutiny . A brief legal analysis of the article shows that the investment trea-ty not only is not so distinguishable from other bilateral investment agree-ments but lags behind the investment chapter of the NAFTA to which Cana-da is a party for years. A further look at the critiques pinpoints that the ar-guments are unwarranted and many of them are either derivative from mis-understanding of the treaty or due to political bias. The article further ar-gues that, in accordance with both the customary rules of international law on signed but unratified treaties’ legal effect, as evidenced by Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the discourses of the publicists in this regard, Canada shall refrain from taking measures against Chinese investors which contravene the aims and purpose of the BIT as the Chinese signatory is waiting for the BIT being given its due force.