Alexa McDonough

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-53. As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is for Canada to implement the provisions of the international convention on the settlement of investment disputes.

I was not able to be here when the secretary of state introduced the bill and she may have addressed one of my questions that I posed to one of the Liberal members speaking to the bill. However, I reiterate the question because it seems to me it is something on which it is important for us to have some understanding. It has to do with the fact this convention has been open for signature for literally 42 years, from March 18, 1965 to this day. The obvious question that arises is, why now? What is the reason that today the government is proposing that something that has been on the books internationally and available for Canada to sign on to for years is suddenly a matter of sufficient importance and urgency to bring it forward in this Parliament?

In the absence of understanding that, I have proceeded to try to make sense out of the bill. I want to make it clear at the outset that the members of the New Democratic Party will not be voting to support Bill C-53 at this time. We have a number of concerns. I will try in the time available to me to summarize those concerns in three categories, first, with respect to matters of transparency, second, the issue of accessibility and third, matters of accountability. We find that this proposed agreement fails to meet the minimal test that we think is appropriate for a sovereign state to be able to seek reassurances that simply are not there.

First, I will speak briefly about transparency. The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes, proposes a consent based process for settling disputes. It is a difficulty that it is specified that once the consent of a party is given, there is no provision for there to be any revocation regardless of how flawed the process may be or how many concerns may arise in terms of how the whole process is being conducted.

The dispute settlement mechanism proposed by Bill C-53 will not just adjudicate individual contracts between foreign companies and sovereign states; it will in fact become the principal international process through which other investment agreements will be interpreted and applied with binding results. Article 48(5) of the convention clearly states:

The Centre shall not publish the award without the consent of the parties.

This creates a real concern about the transparency of the process. It seems that if matters are of sufficient import to our government, or for that matter to the corporations that are a party to such processes, there needs to be the assurance of there being some transparency around what has actually transpired.

The mechanism that is being proposed will exist under the aegis of the World Bank. That is an organization with which a great many NGOs have concerns. A great many countries, particularly the poorest of the poor countries in the world have major concerns with the World Bank. The New Democratic Party has raised concerns about it as well and in fact is pleased that the foreign affairs and international development committee currently is seized with some of those concerns and is looking at the issues of transparency, accountability and accessibility.

It seems to me at the very least that the government should not be jumping ahead without a more thorough examination of some of the concerns that have been brought to our attention through the experience of respected NGOs. One such NGO is the Halifax Initiative, an organization that was established after the G-8 was held in Halifax. It has nothing to do with me or my riding specifically. There was concern that there were no adequate responses to some of these serious issues. Another of the NGOs that presented on the matter before the committee was KAIROS, a highly respected multi-faith organization which is very involved in international development work around the world.

Concerns have not only arisen around the transparency and accountability of the World Bank operation which have massive implications for countries in the south but actually about the transparency of the Canadian government's decision-making as it relates to our participation in the World Bank.

These are issues that need to be examined more carefully with more satisfactory responses before we plunge into what is proposed here in the way of signing on to a convention. If for 42 years it has not been of sufficient or adequate usage by a series of Conservative-Liberal governments and the problems of transparency still remain with respect to the World Bank, it seems to me that it would be better if we put our house in order before we proceed with this new agreement.

Let me move briefly to the issue of accessibility. The process that is set out in the ICSID, which is the international convention that we are dealing with here, does not allow for third party testimony whatsoever. No matter how adversely some communities or other citizens may be impacted by certain contentious agreements between two parties, there is no allowance for what is called in legal terms amicus curiae briefs and is very problematic except with the full consent of the two parties to the arbitration.

There are citizens, communities and probably in some cases regional interests that could be massively impacted by some of these disputed agreements. It is not acceptable to us that there is no provision for some third party testimony being brought before an arbitration hearing. Couple that with the fact that there is no requirement for the decisions and the awards to be published, it is just a further reason for not being able to support this proposed process in its current form.

Most proceedings will probably be held in Washington. There is provision for a few designated centres elsewhere around the world, but they will take place in a small number of capital cities and will be entirely inaccessible in many instances to those third parties who may have a distinct and legitimate interest in the proceedings. Therefore, there are issues about accessibility. There is no question that countries in the southern hemisphere will most likely be impacted in adverse ways around such procedures and disputes.

Third, with respect to accountability, as I have already indicated, all decisions issued through the proposed dispute mechanism will be binding. The provisions for any appeals that could be launched to such binding decisions are very narrow and minimal.

According to article 52 in Bill C-53, annulment of a decision could only be permitted under five conditions: first, that the tribunal was not properly constituted in the first place; second, that the tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers; third, that there was actually documented corruption in the tribunal itself; fourth, that there was a breach in the rules of procedure; and fifth, the award failed to state the reasons on which the decision was based.

Those are really very narrow legalistic provisions that would permit for any kind of appeal process whatsoever. Given the severe impact, the magnitude of the implications of decisions that may be rendered by such a dispute resolution body, when we combine the lack of transparency, the lack of accessibility with the lack of accountability, one has to be very concerned about why we need sign on to provisions that are this lacking in terms of really being transparent and accountable for its decisions.

Citizens cannot know which decisions are taken or how much their government is expected to pay in some cases where decisions are made that the government is a party to these decisions. We are talking largely about huge corporations, and in the instance of the government losing the decision, there is not even any kind of mandatory disclosure. In fact, the opposite is true.

It is not permissible for there to be disclosure of how much a government may actually be forced to pay in the event of such a decision being made that has the government, representing the people of one's country, on the losing side.

In that event, how is it possible for citizens to hold their government accountable, or foreign corporate entities for that matter? How is it possible to judge the legitimacy of ICSID decisions that are reached? I think it fundamentally erodes the democratic accountability and the transparency that needs to be obtained.

In conclusion, a great many Canadians remember, and certainly New Democrat members of Parliament remember all too well, the attempt of the previous government to plough ahead with the introduction of the multilateral agreement on investment. It was truly astounding when this came to light, it was actually a process that was so kind of clandestine and so below the radar that I remember asking questions on the campaign trail.

I hope my memory serves me correctly. It was either in 1997 during the federal election campaign or 2000, and my colleagues confirm that my first instinct was right. My memory is never perfect, I have to confess to that, but in 1997 the multilateral agreement on investments had just barely risen to public awareness and it was impossible to get any information about what this agreement was really all about.

Overwhelmingly, what we were hearing from people, the more we were able to delve into it, was that they were very concerned about the extent to which this multilateral agreement on investment would have severally curtailed the sovereign rights of states and citizens to the benefit, overwhelmingly, of large, transboundary, multinational corporations.

Had the ICSID process, the dispute mechanism that is here proposed in Bill C-53, existed at the time and had the multilateral agreement on investment gone ahead, cases of arbitration under the multilateral agreement on investment would actually have been channelled through the ICSID. As I mentioned at the outset when I raised questions about why now, why is this so-called new Conservative government now saying it has become very important for us to move ahead with this when it has been available for signature for 42 years, one really has to consider the adverse implications that would have accrued to Canada had we found ourselves in the situation of the MAI having gone ahead.

Thank goodness Canadians were not prepared for that to happen, but had it gone ahead it would have become subject to this disputes mechanism body with all the additional concerns that I have already raised.

With those reservations, the NDP has reached the conclusion that this is not a piece of legislation that we can support. We would have no recourse for arbitration decisions that would seriously erode the sovereign authority of the Canadian state had MAI gone into existence. We would have had no say whatsoever in the course of proceedings.

These are not light matters. These are not casual concerns. The ICSID process, while not substantive in itself, in our view has the very dark and worrisome potential to make bad financial investment agreements even worse. As I indicated at the outset, the New Democratic Party members of Parliament will not be voting for Bill C-53.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I very much regret that I was not able to be here when the secretary of state spoke on the introduction of Bill C-53. When this bill was introduced, she may very well have addressed this question.

I am not now in a position to ask her the question, but I am interested in asking members of the official opposition a question. Why now we are seeing a bill to propose that Canada become an implementer of this international convention on the settlement of investment disputes?

It is my understanding, and perhaps the hon. member for Mississauga South can correct me if I have not understood this accurately, that this convention has actually been open for signature ever since March 18, 1965. During many years of Liberal government, the decision was taken not to be a signatory to this, not to bring in legislation that would implement it. I wonder if he could comment on the reasons for not having done so.

[Petitions, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling upon Parliament to require Canadian companies operating internationally to meet clearly defined corporate accountability standards, including existing international human rights and environmental standards, as a precondition for both public and political assistance of any kind through Canada and its agencies and departments.

The petitioners urge that Parliament develop effective monitoring verification and compliance mechanisms to ensure that Canadian companies operating internationally meet these standards, and that Parliament develop legislation to hold companies and their directors accountable in Canada when found complicit in human rights abuses and environmental destruction abroad, and to offer victims of such violations a forum where their grievances can be addressed.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I followed closely the comments by the member from, I believe, Edmonton—Strathcona.

Before I put a question to the member, I want to acknowledge, if I am not ruled out of order for doing so, that one of the really vocal and articulate critics of the flawed decision of a previous Liberal government to gut the Foreign Investment Review Agency was in fact our current Deputy Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who of course was previously the member from Winnipeg--Birds Hill.

I think what we have here is a serious difference of opinion in this debate about the causes of what is incontestable in our current economy and the causes of what has been happening over a period of years in terms of substantial job losses, and particularly the transformation of good quality jobs, well paid jobs and more secure jobs, into bad jobs.

Also, there are the numbers of Canadian businesses that are indeed increasingly vulnerable to foreign takeover. It is not just that they are vulnerable, because we already have had 11,000 such takeovers presided over by the Liberals doing absolutely nothing about it.

The Conservative member on the government side has been rejecting the central proposition of the motion before us, which is that the increasing vulnerability of Canadian businesses to foreign takeovers is a result of the income trust tax decision. I want to ask the member if he could share with the House his view of what it is, therefore, that is putting Canadian enterprises at risk and making them more vulnerable. What is--

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Scarborough Centre. I do not disagree for a moment that many Canadians were very upset with the reversal of the Conservative position set out during the election with respect to income trusts. It has to be regretted that many people were harmed by that.

In fact, some of the biggest and wealthiest of the corporate elite in Canada tell us that there will be massive financial implications for them in the double-cross of the Conservatives. However, it is also appropriate for us to note that modest income people, in some instances, particularly seniors, have been hurt by that.

Without any hesitation, the New Democratic Party, which has had a long-standing position on this issue, absolutely and clearly committed to a phasing out, in a responsible way, income trusts. It is a position that I and my party stand behind. The rationale for that position was not only set out very well by the NDP finance critic, the member for Winnipeg North, but also by witness after witness before the finance committee.

How can the hon. member for Scarborough Centre and his party completely ignore all of that accumulated evidence? Why does his party not recognize that there is a massive, well-funded lobby being conducted now by the corporate elite around this issue because of their own immediate interests, not the long term financial interests of either Canadian corporations or the Canadian economy at the heart of their position?

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Liberal member give a selective history on the whole issue of protection for foreign takeover of our economy. I wonder if he could address the question so we are clear about this.

I believe he was correct when he said, but maybe I have misinterpreted, that it was in fact the previous Conservative government that took the teeth out of some of our important legislation that would have made it possible to put to the test the question of national interest in our own economy before approving foreign takeovers of some of our major industries. I believe that occurred in the mid-1980s. Perhaps the member could confirm that. I think the unanswered question is really what happened since it was recognized by then that what was effectively happening was that there was a bean counter just counting the numbers of takeovers, with no opportunity to stand up against our national economy being hollowed out.

The Liberals came to power in 1993, and if I am not mistaken, on the eve of an election suddenly wakened to the fact that we needed to have such legislation in place. Now the Liberals are apoplectic that it died on the order paper just before an election, some 13 years after the Liberals came to power.

Am I not correct in that historical account? Although I think the real issue is what needs to be done in the future and who actually can be trusted to follow through, based on their record in this House. If I can finish by making a reference to the fact--

[Sudan, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just policy talk, it is policy action that is needed.

However, speaking of leadership, the minister will know that non-governmental organizations and Sudanese Canadians came together today with students from across Canada under the umbrella of STAND, Students Taking Action Now in Darfur.

These concerned citizens challenged all parliamentarians and all political parties to take a strong stand and respond decisively to the deepening tragedy in Darfur. All who gathered were deeply disappointed when only one government member even bothered to show up.

What is the government's response to the plea issued again today for a robust, comprehensive, inclusive--

[Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, international delegates are meeting in Vienna to prepare for the next round of nuclear non-proliferation treaty talks. Unlike our U.S. neighbours, Canada claims to support our twin obligations to advance both nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, yet Canada is silent in the face of NATO policies to maintain strategic nuclear weapons and to sanction the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike option.

Nuclear non-proliferation will not happen in the absence of genuine nuclear disarmament on nuclear possessing states. These principles go hand in hand. The government says it wants to be a leader, but actions speak louder--

[Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment further on the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for West Nova.

The previous speaker really hit the nail on the head in recognizing that the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre at Cornwallis in Deep Brook was a very important institution in the first instance.

There is a major concern which is widely shared not just by Canadians but by others who used to respect Canada as a meaningful peacekeeper and peace builder in the world as to whether Canada is seriously committed to that role any more. It is not a pretty picture what people draw about Canada in many parts of the world today. Those who watch closely see some of the contradictions in Canada's position, in that we bow to the peace altar, but what we actually do is a contradiction to what really needs to be done.

As this debate goes on in this place, the NPT PrepCom meetings are happening this week in Vienna. Canada will take part, as it has done again and again, in discussions about how we are going to prevent the world from annihilation through nuclear proliferation. Canada will say it is very much in support of the NPT. As a signator of the non-proliferation treaty, it commits us to serious abolition of nuclear weapons. However, at the same time Canada will be there waving the flag of NATO.

NATO and many countries in NATO are serious violators of the provisions of the NPT. By association and by being part of the NATO family, we become partners, and hypocrites really, in the exercise of saying we are serious about maintaining peace and literally the survival of the human race, but we are also signators to the many violations taking place among our partners in NATO.

It is sad but true that the previous Liberal government and now the current Conservative government have been quite prepared for the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre to be on life support since its inception. It was a brilliant, creative response to the closure of the Cornwallis base in the first instance to understand the desperate need for leadership in peacekeeping and peace building in the world today. We must recognize that the wiping out of 700 jobs is devastating to that economy. It was seen as a partnership and a coming together of interlocking needs to put forward this proposal.

I have to commend the original authors of that, who, in collaboration with the community, joined community needs with the government's responsibilities to put this forward. Erika Simpson and Peter Langille were very instrumental in this in the first instance.

What is sad is that the Auditor General within a year or two had already commented that the centre's long term viability was going to be very much in question. This was from a pure economic point of view. The previous Liberal government moved further and further away from taking any real responsibility not just for the economic viability of that centre, but for the integrity and the comprehensiveness of the peacekeeping and peace building mission that drove the vision in the first place.

Part of the backdrop that has unfolded has been sort of a Greek tragedy in a way for Canada and the world. Canada has been a major contributor to peacekeeping in the world. Canada used to be in the top 10 year after year, but Canada has now so eroded our commitment as participants in peacekeeping that we are now, I think, 57th among nations contributing to peacekeeping in the world.

Some people may say they have already heard the messages from Rick Hillier, from the finance minister and, I think by implication, from the Prime Minister that peacekeeping is not that important in the world anymore. Both of the previous speakers quite correctly pointed out that the original notion of peacekeeping as just maintaining a truce between two parties to an agreement has very much expanded into a broader notion of peace building in all of its complexity. The world has never been more desperate for leadership in this area.

It is a source of pride to Canadians, and if I may say so, particularly Canadian women, that the new head of the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission is a Canadian woman. She has had a distinguished career in public service with CIDA, with United Nations development programs, and ultimately in a tremendous demonstration and example of a meaningful, complex peace building process in Burundi.

We know there is more and more need for this. Why? Because most conflicts today cannot be solved by military means. There is a desperate need for a security element in peace building. What is absolutely clear, and we have heard it from our own Prime Minister, our own defence minister, and from Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, is that in Afghanistan it is acknowledged that there is no military solution. What is needed is a comprehensive peace building process.

The reality is that the world is desperate for this kind of leadership. What did the previous Liberal government do? It started dismembering it, like a slow process of amputation. Fortunately the human body can sometimes survive amputations. We bring massive medical know-how to bear and the human body sometimes is able to respond to this kind of trauma. But the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in Nova Scotia has not been surviving the systematic dismembering that has been happening, and the withdrawal of government support on anything but a commercial basis, and now the withdrawal of the needed economic support to have assured its long term viability.

I hope, at the very least in this minority government that maybe we could see some leadership. I hope that all parties could come together to say that we have to recommit to peacekeeping and to complex, comprehensive peace building in a serious way. There will be no solution to Afghanistan until we do that.

If I may, I would like to make a challenge to my colleagues from Nova Scotia, several of whom are in the House for this debate. At the very least I would hope across party lines that we could recognize that Nova Scotia could continue to be a leader in terms of peacekeeping and peace building, but it is going to require pulling together to make that happen.

In conclusion, it is a commentary on Canada's hypocrisy in the world today that we say on the one hand that we are really committed to the NPT, and on the other hand we say that we can be partners in NATO which is violating member countries' obligations left, right and centre.

Let us tackle this as a comprehensive issue, one of the great questions of our time. Let us do it perhaps by looking at some creative partnerships between the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and the Pugwash Peace Exchange, which is now celebrating its 50th anniversary. The synergy between those two could put us on the map as meaning what we say about Canada being committed to peace building and peacekeeping in today's world.

[Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for bringing this motion before the House today and I am very anxious to have a chance to speak on it briefly as well.

The member represents the area in which this very important institution, originally called the Pearson Peacekeeping training centre, now reduced to Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, was established. I wonder if he could give us just a thumbnail sketch around the trend of the funding for that centre.

He already referred to the fact that what was bled off initially was the marketing part of the program to Montreal and then further parts of the program to Carleton and so on. However, I wonder if he could give us a picture about the federal government's support for the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre from its earlier inception to the present because it seems to be a process of erosion that has happened.

I know that the member has focused on the economic impacts of this for the community, which are extremely important. However, there is also the fundamentally important aspect of this twinning of the economic needs and the tremendous need in the world for meaningful commitment to peacekeeping training both here in Canada for our own troops and for others, as many as 30 different countries, who avail themselves of those training programs. I wonder if he could just outline what that trend line has looked like.