Debates of April 18th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am always open to questions. I see that my colleague is a bit worked up.

I must say that that is exactly what we want to do. We want to listen to Canadians and have sessions across the country where Canadians can share their points of view and present their arguments.

Sometimes people get worked up and become angry. People should admit when they are angry. I am not angry. I like having this debate, this important discussion in the House without getting angry.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would speak to my friend from Halifax West through you. I am very disappointed that the Liberal Party thinks that this treaty is better approved as is than put forward right now for a vote and defeated.

This treaty is a direct assault on Canadian sovereignty. It disproportionately protects the rights of state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic of China. By its very nature, because of the larger economic investment flows into Canada from China than in the other direction, the treaty would disproportionately impact Canadian laws, Canadian regulations, and our own sovereignty. At the same time, I dispute what we have been hearing all day from the Conservative MPs, that we would be protecting Canadians operating within China, because under this treaty, there is a unique provision for six months of diplomatic pressure that can be applied by the People's Republic of China before any dispute gets to the arbitration panel.

My prediction is that Canadian businesses will be sold out by their own government for fear of offending Beijing.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. friend. When I think about the argument she makes about giving up our sovereignty, it seems to me that if we want to have multilateral agreements and processes for resolving disputes, or bilateral—where we have to have those and we do not have the multilateral ones in place—that we would have to surrender some level of sovereignty.

I think she would make that argument when it comes to environmental matters. Therefore, I do not see her reluctance to accept any surrender of sovereignty, to accept that the idea of having internationally approved arbitrators would surely be far better for Canadian investors in China than to have Chinese courts making those decisions. That is a reasonable way to function at the international level. I think she would agree that very often, in environmental matters, if we are going to succeed we have to surrender something. Was the Kyoto protocol not international governance? Was that not a surrender of some sovereignty? Is it not a better process to have some of those agreements than to have none? Is it not in Canada's interest to have a framework internationally that is based on rules and not power? As China becomes more and more powerful we had better have some kinds of agreements to protect us, not just bilateral, as in this case, but multilateral international processes, to maintain that rule of law.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. Before I begin, I would like to say that it is very important to support the opposition motion moved by my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.

The foreign investment promotion and protection agreement between Canada and China is not only a risky agreement, even harmful for Canada in every sense, but the way in which it was negotiated and signed is even more dangerous.

Imagine a government going behind closed doors in secret to negotiate an agreement that will bind the Canadian government for the next 30 years without consulting the public, without the consent of parliamentarians—there was no debate—without the consent of the provinces and without asking the first nations. It is unbelievable, but that is what the government is currently doing with FIPA.

After 18 years of backroom negotiations by the previous governments and the current Conservative government, we are being presented with an agreement as a done deal, with no consultation whatsoever. For example, the government did not consult the aboriginal people. However, as my colleague mentioned earlier, under section 35 of the Constitution, the government has a legal obligation to do so before taking measures that affect aboriginal rights. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Any resource development project that might have repercussions for aboriginal lands must be subject to consultation with the first nations.

In response to the violation of its rights, the Hupacasath nation filed an injunction with the Federal Court in order to prevent this agreement between China and Canada from being ratified.

Worse yet, the federal government did not consult the provinces even though this agreement might have consequences for provincial jurisdictions. What is more, an expert from Osgoode Hall, Gus Van Harten, said that FIPA could be deemed unconstitutional because it allows challenges to provincial laws in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

After years of secret negotiations, the agreement has been made public and submitted to Parliament without being studied in committee, with no debate among parliamentarians and without a vote, yet the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway put forward a motion in the Standing Committee on International Trade that the agreement be studied in committee. The motion could not be debated in public and, coincidentally, no study was done.

In October, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre also asked that an emergency debate be held in the House. However, that request was denied as well.

In response to the secrecy around the agreement, Canadians protested. Over 80,000 people signed an online petition and sent a clear message to the Conservatives expressing their concerns. Once again, they received no answer. The government is hiding and is refusing to be accountable. The really strange thing is that the government has not ratified the agreement yet, more than five months after the agreement was signed. This attitude confuses investors and hurts the economy. We are seeing the same level of incompetence as in the Nexen file. The Conservatives miss deadlines, deny requests with no explanation and neglect to give clear instructions.

Now, on the Canada-China agreement, there is nothing but silence. Why? Is the government, by any chance, realizing that it has made some serious legal mistakes? If it had submitted the agreement for consultation, for study by experts and if it had taken the time to consult Canadians, it would probably not be in the position it is today.

Clearly, this agreement, as signed, is not at all beneficial for Canada. Canadian businesses need an agreement that gives them access to the Chinese market, which is not the case in the slightest. The agreement does not provide a tool to challenge protectionist barriers and does not protect Canadian investments unless they have been approved and set up in China. This way of doing things is bad for Canada.

In 2011, Canada invested $4.5 billion in China. In contrast, China invested $11 billion in Canada. In 2012, the amount was almost $22.9 billion. According to the Conference Board of Canada forecast, China could become the second-largest investor in Canada by 2020. That is very worrisome.

It is therefore important that before we ratify the agreement we establish some clear rules and ensure we are signing an agreement that will benefit Canada as much as possible.

There are huge environmental risks. The agreement allows Chinese investors to challenge Canadian laws in international courts, where the process could be held in secret at the request of one of the two sides.

Under article 6 of the FIPA, once a Chinese company is established in Canada, it must receive “national treatment” with respect to expansion and operation, which means that it can expand its activities, just like a Canadian company.

The FIPA also gives Chinese companies the right to demand a “minimum standard of treatment”. This means that in the case of CNOOC, for example, which was authorized to take over Nexen, the agreement gives the Chinese state-owned company powerful rights to expand its involvement in the oil and gas sector and to challenge the regulations and laws it considers to be unfair treatment.

Since we know that in 2012, Chinese companies already controlled more than 7% of Canada's oil sands reserves and that this figure will increase, this agreement is even more risky. That is not all. The treaty allows foreign companies to sue the federal government if they think that their rights are being violated by our environmental laws.

Imagine if the government took measures to make oil sands development more responsible and environmentally conscious in the future. In such a case, any Chinese companies that had invested in this sector could challenge the new environmental laws in a tribunal established under the agreement, even if the laws are warranted.

This is not far-fetched. Similar arbitration tribunals, such as the NAFTA tribunal, have already ruled against Canada in similar cases. For example, in 1997, Ethyl Corporation in Virginia challenged a Canadian law to protect Canada against MMT, a toxic additive in gasoline. In the case of S.D. Myers of Ohio, an American company successfully challenged a Canadian directive to prohibit the export of PCB-contaminated waste. Yet Canada's decision complied with our obligations under the Basel convention on hazardous materials.

More recently, American company Lone Pine Resources challenged Quebec's moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, and Windstream challenged Ontario's moratorium on sea wind farms.

It is clear that the mechanisms for resolving disputes arising from these agreements do not serve the interests of Canadians. Canadian investors have made 16 NAFTA claims, but have not won a single case. So far, the federal government has paid $157 million in penalties and settlements. In the end, it is the Canadian taxpayers who pay the price.

How can we allow foreign companies to sue the Canadian government over legitimate environmental laws? How can we allow that to happen through tribunals that are not even Canadian and do not comply with Canada's legal rules?

The arbitrators on these international tribunals are replaceable. They can be paid for non-judicial activities, and there is no predetermined list for appointments, which raises a number of questions about the impartiality of these judges.

Canada must retain control over key sectors of its economy, such as agriculture and energy. However, these types of investment agreements take that power away from the government and hand it over to foreign companies. Who is responsible for protecting Canadians' environment, health, sovereignty and economy if not the Canadian government? What is wrong with this picture? No one on the other side of the House can see these flaws.

Howard Mann of the International Institute for Sustainable Development is warning Canadians about this agreement. He feels that the treaty does not clearly define the notion of fair and equitable treatment, and that makes us very vulnerable on the environmental front.

Canada needs an investment agreement, but not an agreement like the FIPA.

Our country needs to increase trade and investment with China and other emerging powers, but through sound agreements that truly serve our interests and protect our investments. We need to retain control over our natural resources and protect our environment. We cannot give foreign companies the power to dictate our environmental laws.

As long as those criteria are not met, any investment agreement—with China or any other country—will be bad for Canada.

Canada and its natural resources must not be sold to foreign companies. It is time for us to take back control of our economy, invest where needed and sign agreements after analyzing them in a transparent and responsible manner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member might even be able to anticipate the question that I am going to put forward.

The Liberal Party has now brought forward two amendments. Both amendments were an attempt to try to get the New Democratic Party to recognize the importance of consulting with Canadians.

In the member's speech, she made reference to working and consulting with the provinces. Other members made reference to consulting with our first nations.

The motion that the Liberals brought forward would have accommodated that before it was even ratified. It seems the motion would have accomplished exactly, for the most part, what the NDP hoped to see happen.

Why are the NDP members voting against what they actually want to see happen, or do they have a hidden agenda and do not really want trade agreements?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member continues asking this question, which is completely out of context.

He knows very well that as soon as the agreement was tabled in Parliament, the member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a motion at the Standing Committee on International Trade calling for an in-depth examination. The NDP also requested an emergency debate to discuss the agreement in this House. Both requests were refused. The NDP also asked the Conservatives a number of questions in the House, hoping to get more information about the agreement, which was negotiated very surreptitiously, in complete secrecy and behind closed doors.

Where were the Liberals during that time? We do not know. Now they are reacting six month later. That is problematic. If the Liberals thought this issue was truly important, they would support our motion and call on the Conservatives to go back to the drawing board and consult with experts, as they should have done in the first place.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very interesting presentation. Once again, she really highlighted how this agreement, drafted in secret, raises problems because it will allow Chinese companies, including state-owned companies, to sue the Canadian government behind closed doors before arbitration tribunals that have no accountability.

This agreement will undermine our ability to make democratic decisions, particularly concerning the environment. As well as potentially being unconstitutional, this agreement will be binding on this government and future Canadian governments for at least the next 30 years.

In light of all that, does my colleague think, as the Conservatives do, that everything is fine and dandy? Does she believe, as the Liberals do, that we need to go ahead with this agreement to see if it needs a little tweaking? Or does she think it best to tear up the agreement?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her wisdom on this issue.

I basically agree with her. This agreement must absolutely not be ratified. We must re-examine it since it contains so many things that are harmful to Canadians, investors, the environment and Canadians' health.

If such a bill were passed, the provinces' environmental laws could be disputed in international courts presided over by judges who we do not know and who are not identified in advance. The court proceedings could be held in secret at the request of one of the two parties involved. That is not at all transparent or democratic.

We need more information to correct the shortcomings in this agreement. That is why the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway moved this motion today, and that is why we all oppose this agreement.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is not much time, but I will try to make a couple of points.

First, the reason why we oppose this FIPA and why we want to engage in much more public discussion is that we want to see increased trade with countries like China, with emerging economies, but we want to ensure we have good agreements, agreements that promote Canada's interests and protect our ability to maintain Canadian control over our natural resources and over key sectors. That is something the government seems to forget.

We want to ensure that foreign investors have clear and predictable rules that protect the interests of Canadians.

By negotiating bad deals and then delaying the ratification, as the Conservatives have done in this case, they are sending out mixed messages and foreign investors are confused about exactly the direction in which the government is going.

Finally, we want to engage with China in the exchange of ideas and culture so as to level the financial playing field. We need to understand better how our people and our businesses can do business in China and how we can be more successful.

We need to look at a country like Australia that has developed cultural links which provide education and training for businesses in its country in order to do very successful investing and business in China. That is the direction we need to head in our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until Monday, April 22, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly the recorded division is deferred until Monday at the end of government orders.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Last Post Fund

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Last Post Fund is currently underfunded and excludes deserving veterans causing unnecessary stress and hardship to families of veterans, and that the House call on the government to do the following: (a) accept the recommendations of successive Veteran Ombudsmens’ calling for expanded and enhanced financial access to the Last Post Fund; (b) accept the advice from the Royal Canadian Legion made in the years 2008, 2010, and 2012 calling for expanded access and financial support for the Last Post Fund; (c) accept three year old advice from departmental officials to expand and enhance financial access to the Last Post Fund; (d) review the Last Post Fund’s current burial assistance cap of $3,600 with the goal to establish a standard consistent with burial assistance provided to current members of the Canadian Forces; (e) review the “means tested” standard applied to the Last Post Fund that currently excludes many veterans with the goal to improve and lower the qualification standard to access the Fund; and (f) provide stable long term funding to the Last Post Fund with consideration given to establish a financial escalator tied to the Consumer Price Index.

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Random—Burin—St. George's since 2008, it is, indeed, a privilege to introduce my second private member's motion in the House of Commons. My first motion addressed a serious issue, which was the need for additional search and rescue services in Newfoundland and Labrador following the crash of a Cougar helicopter that claimed 17 lives. Motion No. 422 is very important as well and aims to enhance the Last Post Fund to ensure that all veterans receive the dignified funerals and burials that they deserve.

First, I thank my constituents, including over 700 active Canadian Armed Forces personnel and many more retired veterans whose continued support enables me to present this important motion today. I also thank all other veterans and active Canadian Forces members. As well, I thank the Royal Canadian Legion for its continued service and the Veterans Ombudsman, who first and foremost continues to defend the interests of all veterans. Special thanks goes to the Last Post Fund, which has served veterans and their families since its inception in 1909, and to Jean-Pierre Goyer, executive director of the Last Post Fund, for his outspoken advocacy. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the Liberal Veterans Affairs critic and member of Parliament for Charlottetown for his continued dedication to veterans from coast to coast to coast.

The advocacy of all helped in the formulation of my motion. The Last Post Fund is an important program, with a goal to ensure that no eligible veteran is denied a dignified funeral and burial, as well as a military gravestone, due to insufficient funds at time of death. Unfortunately, the Last Post Fund is far from ensuring that all veterans in need receive a dignified funeral and burial because the program is forced to apply outdated eligibility criteria.

There are many cases in my riding and throughout the country where families of veterans who have been either denied by the Last Post Fund's outdated criteria or did not receive sufficient assistance were unable to pay for the total cost of a proper burial. In many of those cases, to help the families, the funeral home will cover the balance of the cost. Simply put, it is shameful for the government to treat our veterans and their families in this way and to expect in some cases small businesses to absorb the additional costs when families of veterans are unable to do so.

In drafting Motion No. 422, I listened intently to suggestions on how to improve the Last Post Fund from various stakeholders, including the Veterans Ombudsman, the Royal Canadian Legion, and the Last Post Fund administration. I sincerely appreciate the endorsement of the Royal Canadian Legion and thank the many legion branches throughout the country that have expressed support for Motion No. 422.

Prior to the budget being released, I wrote to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Veterans Affairs asking that the funding for the Last Post Fund be increased and that the financial criteria be updated to reflect today's realities. It goes without saying that I was pleased to see the finance minister respond to my request that the financial assistance provided by the Last Post Fund be increased and that the amount available to qualifying veterans and their families went from $3,600 to $7,376 in budget 2013. However, that will not help those who still have to deal with outdated eligibility when it comes to qualifying for assistance in order to ensure a veteran is able to be buried with dignity.

Needless to say, I am disappointed the government chose to ignore the recommendations to expand access to the Last Post Fund and update the financial eligibility criteria. As I said before, if the Conservatives would agree to table this change in a separate stand-alone piece of legislation free from contentious cuts to services that many veterans also rely on, I am confident they would find unanimous consent to pass it immediately.

According to the Royal Canadian Legion, “While the federal government has provided an increase to the funeral grant, the recent announcement does not address the accessibility to the program or its extension to low income Canadian Forces Veterans”. The reality is that by failing to expand access to the Last Post Fund, the government missed an opportunity to bring equality and fairness to all veterans, but it is not too late.

Together we can fix this problem. Taking care of our veterans is not a partisan issue, it is our duty. There is no clearer message we can send than to stand behind our veterans, many who spent their military careers standing up for us, and we can vote yes to Motion No. 422. Conversely, there is no clearer message to veterans that we do not support them than by voting no, since this is a stand-alone single issue measure, unlike an omnibus bill or budget that might combine several conflicting issues.

The Veterans Ombudsman released his first report entitled, “Serve with Honour, Depart with Dignity” on February 19, 2009. In his report, the Veterans Ombudsman made seven key recommendations in response to direct testimony from administrators of the Last Post Fund who described the challenges some of the mourning families found when burying their loved ones.

The Veterans Ombudsman recommends:

That the ceiling for Veterans’ funeral and burial expenses be raised to reflect industry standards and that an indexing formula be introduced to ensure that the rates keep up with the economic increases. That the administration of funeral and burial benefits be simplified by using a discretionary lump sum approach for reimbursable expenses rather than the present itemized approach. That Veterans Affairs Canada extend the Funeral and Burial Program to all Veterans. That eligibility related to the Funeral and Burial Program be extended to include Veterans who suffer from multiple pensioned conditions where the total aggregate suffering and weakening of their body may contribute to the cause of death. That the estate exemption (surviving spouse) for the means test be increased and aligned with present-day income and cost levels. That Veterans Affairs Canada engage in a proactive multi-faceted communications campaign to raise awareness of the Funeral and Burial Program. That Veterans Affairs Canada be more flexible and allow for extraordinary circumstances to be considered when the established timeframe is exceeded.

The seven recommendations in that report calling for the expansion and increased access to the Last Post Fund were subsequently reissued by the current Veterans Ombudsman. Motion No. 422 seeks the long overdue implementation of these suggested changes.

Last January, on the same day that I introduced my motion, the Royal Canadian Legion and its more than 330,000 members began a letter-writing campaign calling on the Conservative government to make three specific changes to the Last Post Fund so that families of all veterans can access the financial assistance they require to ensure their loved ones receive a dignified funeral and burial.

First, they asked that the $3,600 rate provided by the Last Post Fund be increased. Second, they asked the government to grant equality to all veterans and stop excluding veterans who served after the Korean War from the Last Post Fund. Finally, they asked that the financial eligibility criteria be updated to reflect current income levels and the fragile economic climate.

I am pleased to report that Motion No. 422 addresses all of their concerns. Despite the Conservative government's own departmental officials and countless stakeholder organizations' recommendations to enhance access to the Last Post Fund, the government has failed to act.

Motion No. 422 also requests a review of the Last Post Fund's burial assistance cap to bring it in line with the burial assistance provided to current members of the Canadian Armed Forces which was included in the recent budget. I welcome the increase to this cap, but as I said earlier, increasing assistance without expanding access does nothing to ensure all veterans receive the dignified funeral and burial they deserve since existing outdated eligibility criteria remain in place.

From 2006 to 2012 under the Conservative government, over 66% of applications, which translates to 20,147 veterans, were rejected. That is unacceptable. The current eligibility requirements applied by the Last Post Fund exclude all veterans who served post-Korean War from receiving any type of federal funding for a dignified burial and funeral. This means that veterans who fought in Afghanistan are not eligible to receive financial aid from the Last Post Fund.

In the words of Jean-Pierre Goyer, the Executive Director of the Last Post Fund, “What is the difference between modern-day veterans that we send to Afghanistan” and those who fought before them?

The financial eligibility criteria are outdated because of inflation and the current economic reality. The Last Post Fund states that in the case of a veteran with a spouse or dependent children, to qualify, their combined net asset value must be $12,015 or less. This figure no longer reflects current income distribution levels within Canada, and must be updated.

That is why I am calling on the House and the government to support Motion No. 422, which would be in the best interests of our veterans and their families.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for sharing her party's views on the funeral and burial program. What is very surprising is to see a member from the Liberal Party stand and put forward such a motion. It was the Liberal Party, while it was in government, that drastically cut benefits under this important program.

Nonetheless, our Conservative government will continue to stand up for our veterans. In fact, under the current program, more generous benefits are provided to our veterans and their families than our allies provide; more than is provided by the United Kingdom, by Australia, or by the United States. Now we have come forward with economic action plan 2013, which would more than double the amount of funding available to our veterans and their families for funerals.

Will the hon. member and her party vote in support of this important support for funerals and benefits in economic action plan 2013?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, is it not just like the Conservatives to suggest that by voting against the economic action plan, we would be voting against veterans, when nothing could be further from the truth? We are giving the Conservatives the opportunity to single out this issue, to vote for Motion No. 422 so that we do not have to do an injustice to our veterans. By voting for Motion No. 422, we could all be supporting our veterans.

Is it not just like a Conservative colleague to go back 20 years and suggest that what the Liberals did was a disservice to our veterans? In fact, according to a 2011 report by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, a committee controlled by a Conservative majority including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in 1995 the estate exemption was decreased “...in an effort to return the program to its original intent; in other words, to provide burials for those who could not afford them”.