Petitions December 11th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from citizens who are very concerned about the changes to the age of eligibility for old age security. They see that as a fundamental increase in inequity in our society.

Petitions December 11th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from citizens who are concerned about the cancelling of the Experimental Lakes program. They would like to have that reversed.

Petitions December 11th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today.

The first petition is from petitioners who are very concerned about climate change. They want to ensure that adaptation is also taken care of. Adaptation is not cost free but it yields benefits, so they are requesting the Government of Canada invest in resources and programs in modelling and in expertise of climate adaptation.

Questions on the Order Paper December 10th, 2012

With regard to the reduction in planned spending for the Canada Revenue Agency’s Policy, Rulings and Interpretations branch from $353,788,000 to $69,179,000 in 2013-2014: (a) how will these planned reductions be achieved; (b) what specific activities, initiatives, and services will be affected; (c) how many part-time, full-time, and contract jobs will be lost; and (d) what stakeholder outreach and consultation was done on the planned spending reduction?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 6th, 2012

With regard to the ocean fertilization experiment conducted by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation in the Pacific Coast waters around Haida Gwaii during the summer of 2012: (a) when and how was the government made aware of the experiment; (b) what specific requests were made of the government and how did the government reply to those requests; (c) what impact does the government anticipate the experiment will have on the local marine ecosystem; and (d) is the experiment in violation or contravention of any international agreement or moratorium, including the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity or the London Convention on Dumping of Waste at Sea?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 6th, 2012

With regard to national historic sites and the response given by the government to Order Paper question No. 773 of the current session of Parliament which states, “The majority of national historic sites have maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; however, some sites opened on June 1 and closed on the Labour Day weekend”: (a) what is the exact number of national historic sites that have maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; (b) what is the exact number of national historic sites which opened on June 1 and closed on Labour Day weekend; and (c) for each individual historic site, what were the opening and closing dates in 2011 and in 2012?

Questions on the Order Paper December 6th, 2012

With regard to foreign affairs: (a) did Canada vote in the October 2012 vote to ratify the membership of Rwanda in the United Nations Security Council and, if so, how did Canada vote; and (b) what was the foreign policy rationale which governed Canada’s vote or abstention from the vote?

Foreign Investment December 4th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite reinforced my very point when he mentioned that China is the second largest economy in the world. Accordingly, this FIPA is substantively different from any previous ones. Moreover, we were given no opportunity to study it in committee, with no expert witnesses able to come forward to help parliamentarians understand the implications.

This is in the context of a government that has forfeited the trust of Canadian citizens. It is a government that has been closed with its information, which has not allowed its scientists to speak to the public about their findings. It is a government that requires the Parliamentary Budget Officer to threaten to take it to court just to produce the information that he requires to provide Parliament with information on the budgets that parliamentarians are expected to vote on and the kinds of accountability they are expected to provide.

It is a government that has lost the trust of the Canadian public and Parliament, and now is concluding major agreements in secrecy without the proper scrutiny that committees would be able to provide. That is what we are seeking. We are seeking this for this agreement and, indeed, all treaties and agreements.

Foreign Investment December 4th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 10, we are expecting a federal decision on the purchase of Nexen. Canadians are still in the dark about the details, the framework for making this decision and the implications of the cumulative levels of our natural resources that can be sold to other enterprises, including national enterprises. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Another controversy is linked to that, and that is the pending ratification of the foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, the FIPA, that locks China and Canada into a 31-year trade and investment agreement. Like many Canadians, I have serious concerns about the new FIPA with China.

Everyone in the House knows that trade is vital to our Canadian economy. Historically, Canada has signed foreign investment protection agreements with countries all over the world. It is clear, however, that this agreement is different from any previous FIPAs the Conservative government has signed.

For example, this agreement is with a country that has a non-democratic political system. It has the second largest economy in the world.

Of the approximately 40 FIPAs Canada has signed since 2004, this is the only one that contains provisions allowing the Canadian government to withhold documents from the public and to conduct arbitration hearings behind closed doors. I want to make it clear that I am for trade with China. I am for strong relationships with China. However, I am not for agreements that are signed in the dark.

This agreement would not guarantee market access or real investment protection for Canadian enterprises doing business in China, which means that minimal benefits would accrue to Canadian exporters. However, it would create significant potential financial risks.

Presently, the Canadian government is rapidly eliminating Canada's environmental assessment and navigable waters ecosystem protections. Should a future provincial or federal government decide to restore these environmental safety nets, the agreement could provide Chinese investors with the right to contest any changes that might be seen as affecting their profitability, leading to costly liabilities for Canadian taxpayers and raising serious questions regarding Canadian sovereignty over lands, resources and our environment.

Finally, the federal government has refused to conduct public hearings on this agreement, despite repeated calls from the Liberal Party, trade experts and thousands of Canadian citizens who have significant concerns about the long-term implications of this agreement. Liberals believe that before being finalized, international treaties such as the Canada-China investment agreement must be transparent, include proper consultation and be subject to arm's-length examination to ensure that the best interests of the Canadian people are being served.

That is why I put forward a motion in the House of Commons to require the government to send all such treaties to a parliamentary committee for public hearings and study after being tabled in the House of Commons and prior to the treaty coming into force. If the government was truly committed to being fair, inclusive and open with Canadians, it would support my motion.

It is unacceptable to sign agreements that lack transparency and are closed to the public. The government is not demonstrating any responsibility in this regard. That is why we are calling for transparency and a thorough review by a parliamentary committee.