Debates of Dec. 4th, 2012

Foreign Investment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member went off on several tangents, so it is a little difficult to know where to start. The late show tonight was to be on the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement that Canada signed with China, which is what I will attempt to answer for.

To make a quick point to begin with, the hon. member mentioned that the agreement between Canada and China is locked in for 31 years. That is patently false. If she did even a rudimentary amount of homework she would know that was not the case. It is renewable and could last for 31 years, but it is not locked in for 31 years from the beginning.

The other thing that needs to be said is that prior to 2006, when that member was in government, treaties were not brought to the House of Commons at all for 21 sitting days. They simply became the law of the land. Here is an opportunity to bring this up on opposition days and to debate this in the House of Commons, and yet neither the Liberals nor the NDP took advantage of that. If they really wanted to have fulsome debate on this issue, they had lots of chances.

The reality is that our government is committed to creating the right conditions for Canadian businesses to compete globally. Canada's foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China, the world's second largest economy, will provide stronger protection for Canadians investing in China and create jobs and economic growth right here at home. It establishes a clear set of rules under which investments are made and investment disputes are resolved. It is no more complicated than that.

For Canadian businesses looking to set up in China, they cannot be treated less favourably than any other foreign company looking to do the same, and once an investment is made, a Canadian business cannot be treated less favourably than any other business, including Chinese businesses.

The FIPA agreement also ensures that all investment disputes are resolved under international arbitration, ensuring that adjudications are independent and fair. Canadian investors in China will no longer have to rely on the Chinese legal system to have their disputes resolved.

Finally, our agreement with China is the first bilateral investment agreement that China has signed that expressly includes language on transparency in dispute settlement proceedings. Let me be clear. It is Canada's long-standing policy that all dispute resolution should be open to the public and that the submissions made by the parties be available to the public. Under the agreement, any decision emanating from dispute resolution would be made public.

Despite the fearmongering of the anti-trade critics, the agreement does not impair Canada's ability to regulate and legislate in such areas as the environment, culture, safety, health and conservation. Furthermore, restrictions in the agreement will preserve Canada's current ability to review foreign investments under the Investment Canada Act to ensure that they provide a net benefit to Canadians and that our national security is not compromised.

In short, the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is similar to the 24 other investment treaties that Canada has signed with key trade and investment partners. We join countries like New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan, who have all signed investment treaties with China on terms that are similar to or, in most cases, less favourable than those we negotiated with China.

The hon. member says she is pro-trade. She has a great opportunity, not to go out there fearmongering but to tell the truth about this treaty, which other countries are extremely jealous of. We now have rules-based investment with China on the Chinese mainland and Chinese have those same sets of rules available to them in Canada. This is no more complicated than that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know I only have a short time to wrap up but the hon. member is simply not putting the correct facts on the table. If her party or she as an individual wants to debate this treaty in the House of Commons, there is ample opportunity for her to do that. Prior to 2008, and I think the hon. member was here at that time, treaties were not brought to the House of Commons for 21 sitting days and, therefore, never had the opportunity to be debated at all. When we formed government in 2006, we corrected that.

The previous government, the hon. member might remember, was a Liberal government, which is the party she is a member of. It had no interest in debating these treaties in the House of Commons and provided no opportunity to do so. All we have done is added openness and clarity to the process to actually engage people in debate about these important issues to Canadians.

The reality is that we have signed 24 FIPAs around the world. This FIPA is really not much different than other ones. The member should look at this. The hon. member said herself that the Chinese economy was the second largest economy in the world and would be the largest economy in the world by 2030. It probably has, although we do not know for sure, some of the largest reserves of foreign currency in the world and the member is saying that we should not trade with them. That is nonsense.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:23 p.m.)