Don Davies

[Lunar New Year, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to bring to all members' attention the celebration of Lunar New Year by millions of Canadians. Among these, I want to pay particular tribute to Canadians of Chinese and Vietnamese descent, for whom this time of year is especially meaningful.

Chinese New Year and Vietnamese Tet represent more than 4,000 years of history. They are the grandest and most important festivals in these cultures. They are times of worship and gratitude, remembering ancestors and honouring family, and wishing good fortune, new beginnings and hope for the future.

This is the Year of the Snake. The snake symbolizes intelligence, capability, calmness, astuteness and wealth. As we wish these qualities for every Canadian, let us also hope that these may characterize our deliberations in the House.

I want to thank all of those who celebrate Lunar New Year for sharing this wonderful festival with all Canadians. Their gifts of culture enrich our nation.

[Foreign Investment, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, finally we have someone on the government side who acknowledges that this deal will govern investment for 31 years. It proves that even the government members are starting to read the agreement.

What we do not hear from the government is it responding to the actual substantive points we have raised. Conservatives do not stand up in the House and defend why they would sign a dispute resolution mechanism that allows a country to go and resolve legal issues in private. There is not a word. The Conservatives do not stand up and defend why they signed a lopsided deal that gives Chinese investors in this country far more protection and rights than Canadian investors have in China.

The New Democrats support protecting Canadian investors in China. We have never said otherwise. However, misrepresentation is the government's stock in trade, because it cannot deal with the facts. The facts are that we can sign an investment agreement with China, but it should conform to Canadians' expectations of the rule of law and protect Canadian investors.

I will ask again, why will the government not bring this deal before Parliament so that we can examine this deal to see if it is actually a well-structured deal? It sure does not look like it from this point of view.

[Foreign Investment, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand one more time to talk about the issue of the Canada–China investment treaty, or FIPA, and to again force the Conservatives to be accountable to Canadians about this deal.

FIPA is a deal that will be in force for 31 years once it is ratified by the government, which is any time now. I am going to break it down for the members opposite because they mislead all the time. It has a 15-year term. At the end of 15 years, either party can serve notice if it wants to cancel the agreement in the 16th year. If a party does so, all investments made under the first 15 years will continue to be bound by the terms of the FIPA for a further 15 years. That amounts to a 31-year deal at minimum.

This deal took 18 years to negotiate. What is in this deal? Here are some of the concerns that we have.

It contains a provision for secret tribunals where investors from either country can sue the other country for alleged violations of this deal. If that is the case, the country being sued can choose to hold those hearings in private, with the documents not being released to the public. That is the first time in Canadian history that any Canadian government has ever signed an international treaty allowing the other party to have tribunals held in private. If the investors are successful in suing Canada or vice versa, these are taxpayers' dollars at risk. It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that all legal proceedings should be held in public. I cannot believe that in 2013 we even have to mention that concept. However, to the Conservative government apparently it is a novel concept.

Another provision of this agreement that is of concern is the clause allowing both countries to keep all existing non-conforming measures in place, while they agree not to bring in any further non-conforming measures in the future. What is a non-conforming measure? It is a law or rule or practice that discriminates against foreign investors. Why is this of concern? It is because China has many non-conforming measures as a command economy. Canada has very few non-conforming measures because we have been on a 25-year path of trade liberalization. Thus the government has signed a deal that lets China keep in perpetuity hundreds, perhaps thousands, of non-conforming measures that will discriminate against Canadian investors, while we have very few in reverse. What are these non-conforming measures? China is renowned for having rules that require Canadian or any investors to do local sourcing. They force partnerships with local Chinese firms. They force companies to pay fees, licences and all sorts of money under the table. These are the kinds of non-conforming measures that will affect Canadian investors, and Canada has virtually none. This is an unbalanced deal.

We are going to talk about debate. The government members have said that the opposition could have debated the motion, because the government tabled this in the House for 31 days. Here is the truth. An official opposition day motion permits us to have one day of debate and then a vote. The New Democrats tabled a motion at the trade committee where we could have put this agreement before the committee for multiple days of close examination and called stakeholders, like Canadian businesses and investors, provinces, trade experts and lawyers, so that we could get the input of the Canadian public. What did the Conservatives do? They shot it down. They said no. Therefore, when the Conservatives say they were willing to debate this deal, Canadians should not be fooled. That is absolutely untrue.

My question for the government is this. If this FIPA is such a good deal for Canadians, why will the Conservatives not agree to bring this agreement before the House for multiple days of study, send it to the trade committee where we can hear from the Canadian public, and let us see if this is actually a deal worth supporting?

[International Trade, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the only people being fooled are those who believe that the Conservatives are good, competent negotiators in trade.

These are important talks, but the Conservatives have refused to conduct them in an open and accountable manner. They refuse to give information to Canadian taxpayers or brief this Parliament. Canadians had to find out from European negotiators that the Conservatives are considering concessions that would limit local economic development.

Can the government assure Canadians that CETA will protect Canadian communities' rights to invest in local initiatives to create jobs in our communities?

[International Trade, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, negotiators from the EU are in Ottawa again this week to discuss trade with Canada. New Democrats believe we should broaden and deepen our trade ties with Europe, because Europe is an ideal partner. It is a modern, dynamic economy with high standards and respect for the rule of law. However, Canadians do not just want any deal they can get. Canadians want a good deal.

Will the Conservatives commit to this House that the interests of farmers, our seniors and our local municipalities will not be sacrificed at the negotiating table?

[Foreign Investment, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here are some facts.

This agreement would be in force for 15 years and even if the government does not renew the agreement and cancels it, the provisions of the agreement mean that it would stay in force for a further 15 years after that. The member well knows that. In short, this agreement, even if cancelled, would be in force for a minimum of 30 years, plus the one year. That is a fact.

Second, I put a motion before the trade committee to study the FIPA. As the current Conservative government is fond of doing, it went behind closed doors, so I am not at liberty to tell members how anyone voted. However, what I can tell members is that when we came out of that meeting, my motion was denied.

When the government tries to tell the Canadian public that it wants to shine the light on this agreement, that is belied by the facts. The government refused to study this FIPA and to bring stakeholders, Canadians and investors to our committee where we could actually study the agreement to see if it were a good deal.

The reason the Conservatives were afraid to do that is that they know it is a bad deal. They know that Canadians would not accept a deal that would allow China to go behind closed doors to hear disputes in private and they would not sign a deal that would give Canadian investors less equal treatment than Chinese investors.

I ask the member, why will the government not agree to study this deal when it will have such important ramifications and be in force for a minimum of 31 years? Why will it not allow the trade committee to study this? For Canadians, answer that direct question.

[Foreign Investment, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again tonight to address the foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, or FIPA, that the government recently concluded with China but has not yet put into place.

I will start by reiterating the New Democrats' commitment to working with Canadian businesses, labour and our international trade partners to expand trade and investment opportunities around the world. The Canadian economy and Canadian jobs rely on trade and our businesses benefit from foreign investment.

Of course, China is a big part of the trading dynamic. It is the second largest economy in the world. It is an ascending economy and there is a profound connection between our two countries. In my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, nearly half my constituents are either immigrants from China or have Chinese heritage. This connection is what brings both cultural and economic vibrancy to my community and to our country.

FIPA took 18 years to negotiate between Canada and China. It has provisions that once in force will keep it in force for at least 31 years. Yet the government and the MPs on the government side of the House did not schedule any form of debate or study about the FIPA. The minister would not come before our committee to answer any questions about the FIPA. In fact, the government members would not allow any study of the FIPA at committee. A motion I put forward to study it at committee was turned down and they did not schedule the FIPA to be brought to a vote in the House.

If anything deserves careful study and scrutiny, it is this investment protection agreement. The general concept is sound. The protection of investors is especially needed in China. It is not disrespectful to China to point out the difficulties and challenges that Canadian investors, and in fact any kind of foreign investors, face in China. There is inconsistent application of the rule of law and difficulty in enforcing contracts. Those are well known issues.

The concept of a FIPA is sound between the two countries, but FIPAs, like the one we are discussing now, can prevent governments from enacting policies in the public interest. What we are talking about are provisions of this particular FIPA that are of concern to Canadians. This agreement that the Conservatives signed would allow foreign state-owned companies to buy up more and more interests in our natural resources and if the government tried to impose restrictions on them we, the Canadian taxpayers, could be sued.

For the first time in Canadian history, the Conservative government allowed for a dispute resolution process, a process that is already prone to corporate bias and antithetical to principles of the rule of law. It has allowed this process to happen behind closed doors. The government has signed a section that says that if one of the countries that is being sued wants to, it can have the hearing, the legal suit challenging breach of agreement, heard behind closed doors and all documents would be hidden from the public.

Canada is a democratic country where we follow the norms of the rule of law. The rule of law is we have open courts. We have an open justice system. We do not allow court tribunal systems to be heard in private, maybe in a private commercial setting, but not when taxpayer dollars are on the hook. The government signed a provision like that, for the first time in history.

Second, this FIPA contains a provision that allows China and Canada to keep all non-conforming measures, which are measures that are currently restraints on trade. The problem is that China has been a closed economy for a long time and has many non-conforming measures, whereas Canada is a liberal market model.

My question for the government is this. Why would it signed an imbalanced agreement that treats Canadian investors unfairly, gives them less rights than Chinese investors in Canada and has a dispute resolution mechanism that allows disputes to be heard behind closed doors in secret? Why is that?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, getting policy right in Parliament is not always easy and when we pick an arbitrary number to determine whether individuals are serious criminals is always a question of subjectivity.

In Canadian law, the general historical rule for determining whether something is a serious offence is a sentence of two years or more. If it is a sentence of two years or more, they do federal time; if it is two years or less, they do provincial time. We recognize that there are different levels of services offered, based on which side the sentence is on.

I am curious about the use of the term “serious foreign criminals” for people who get a sentence of six or seven months. Nobody in this House would ever say that a criminal sentence is not serious. Anytime a person is going to prison, obviously that is something that is worthy of sanction. However, in terms of taking permanent residents and deporting them from a country they may have lived in for 20 or 30 years, based on getting a sentence of seven or eight months, is something that is worthy of debate.

Does my hon. colleague have any comment on whether he thinks that moving serious criminality from two years to six months, or keeping six months, is an appropriate demarcation that would result in such consequences like deportation from the country in which someone may have grown up?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With respect to any analysis by officials from Industry Canada and Health Canada on the impact of Patent Term Restoration (PTR) in Canada: (a) what options for implementing a PTR system in Canada have been evaluated by officials at Industry Canada and Health Canada; (b) what are the estimated impacts on the cost of drugs in Canada that would arise from the implementation of a PTR system based on that which exists in the European Union; (c) what are the estimated impacts on the cost of drugs in Canada that would arise from other options to implement a PTR system in Canada, as analysed by officials; (d) what was the detailed methodology employed to estimate the impacts on the cost of drugs in Canada of these various options; (e) which of these options is being proposed by the government in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiations; (f) what is the final title of any report(s) or studies prepared by, or on behalf of, these departments concerning CETA within the last two years; (g) will the government be releasing any of these reports publicly; and (h) what were the findings of these reports regarding costs to Canadian governments or the Canadian economy of patents?

[Petitions, November 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Grandmothers Advocacy Network signed by hundreds of people in British Columbia who point out that millions of people die needlessly each year from treatable diseases, such as HIV-AIDS, TB and malaria, and that half the people who require treatment for these diseases in sub-Saharan Africa do not receive it.

The petitioners call on the House to support Bill C-398 that has the provisions necessary to make Canada's access to medicines regime workable at no cost to taxpayers. It is essentially the same bill passed previously by the House. They urge all parliamentarians, as I do, to support Bill C-398 when it comes before the House.