Evidence of meeting #51 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes, of course. Okay.
Again, sir, why the rush? Do you see any benefit in hearing, in an organized fashion, from the business community, from the provinces? I won't ask you that, sir. I think I know the answer.
Let me turn to the effect of this FIPA on the provinces and pick up on Mr. Easter's questions. Would this FIPA subject provinces to claims for damages as a result of this legislation if a Chinese investor believed that provincial actions had violated this deal?
5:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No, it doesn't subject provinces to any claims. The federal government is responsible. The federal government would be accepting all obligations.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Then if I understand correctly, they could claim that a provincial action violated the deal and it could be the basis of a claim by a Chinese investor, and they could be successful, but it's the federal government that would pay.
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes. The federal government is responsible for the agreement.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
That's right.
To quote the Conservatives, all money comes from the taxpayers, so at the end of the day it's the taxpayers of Canada who pay for any violation of the FIPA made by a province of this country.
Were the provinces consulted, and has agreement been sought in achieving this FIPA?
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes indeed, the provinces have been consulted at every step in the process. It's a regular feature of all of the C-Trade meetings that we have with the committee of federal and provincial trade officials on an ongoing basis. It's also been raised in meetings at the deputy minister level.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Do you have sign-off by the provinces on this FIPA? I ask because I talked to a provincial premier today who told me that they have not been consulted about this deal and they have not signed off on it.
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Well, the provinces have all been consulted. No province has objected to it. Some have spoken publicly in favour of it, including British Columbia and Quebec, I believe.
The federal government does not solicit formal sign-off from the provinces, because this is an area of federal responsibility.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Right, but they are doing that in the CETA deal, aren't they? The provinces have a seat at the table, don't they?
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The provinces do have a limited role in the CETA negotiations.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Did the provinces have any role in the negotiation of this FIPA?
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
To be clear here, the CETA involves areas that are under explicit and direct provincial responsibility, whereas the negotiation of an international investment agreement is an exclusive federal responsibility.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I shake my head a little bit, because I always wonder what the opposition has against rules-based trading, and I don't know how you expect to encourage development and put an incentive out there for manufacturing or industry to invest and trade with nations around the world. China is a huge presence across the Pacific Ocean dozens and dozens of other countries have already signed FIPAs with. Canada is behind the eight ball, quite frankly, with this.
Let's list them off. They're the second-largest economy in the world, will probably be the largest economy in the world in 2020. We don't have an investment trade agreement with them. No one knows for sure, but they probably have some of the largest reserves of foreign currency of any nation on earth. There's a huge investment potential in that. Are we saying we're not going to trade with them and, not only that, we should put barriers up so we won't trade with them?
I commend you for the job you've done. I think this is late in coming; we understand that. These negotiations aren't easy. It's not easy negotiating with a closed and inclusive society like China. It's a different economy from ours. It's only emerging into a market economy. I think you guys and gals have moved light years, and good for you.
I take exception to comments that somehow rules-based trading is not good for this country. The idea that you would ignore that economy is shocking to me, absolutely shocking. The idea of a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is to give a basis for investment for Canadians abroad. It also is reciprocal to give a basis for investment and equal status to investment coming into Canada from overseas. That's as simple as it is. I'm not trying to oversimplify this issue, and the idea that somehow we need more discussion on it.... Prior to 2008, treaties were never tabled in the House of Commons.
So it's would've, could've, should've, it's not enough, we should have more. Give your heads a shake here, guys and gals. You opened it up. If you wanted to debate it in the House of Commons, you've had four opportunities to do it. We arranged to bring the department in today to make sure that any of the questions that could have been out there that need to be answered—and everyone has a right to information—get answered. I'm not giving you much chance to answer, but I have to get this out. I don't have a question, but I have to finish my statement and we'll end this off for today.
5:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Finally, and I think it needs to be said again, for the first time we have some clear rules and clear parameters in dealing with what will soon be the world's largest economy, and that's good for Canada and it's obviously good for investment in China. Thank you for doing that.
5:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
As the chair, I have one quick question on this one, if you'll allow me.
China's number one trading partner is Japan, is that right? China's number two trading partner would be the United States of America, I believe. Don't argue; it doesn't matter.
5:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
You just trumped our entire team.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
The question is this: neither one of those has a FIPA, is that right? Is that accurate?
5:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No, there is actually a trilateral investment agreement now in place between China, Japan, and Korea.
5:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes.
5:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No, not with the United States.