Gerald Keddy

[Foreign Investment, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am still mulling over in my head how the NDP can protect and agree to protect Canadian investors in China but be against the FIPA. I have given that some consideration, and that box simply does not square.

Here is the deal in a nutshell. Before coming to government in 2006, we did not table treaties in the House of Commons. There was no opportunity for debate.

The hon. member said that he did not want to debate it there. He wanted to debate it somewhere else. The opportunity was here in the House of Commons to put the FIPA on the table and discuss it ad nauseam in the time the opposition has allotted every week. For 31 sitting days, the answer was a resounding no from the NDP, who did not want to look at it.

[Foreign Investment, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admire the hon. member opposite for his persistence. He asked a question in the House on the FIPA with China, then he gets to ask a question in the late show. The question in the late show should try to correct the mistakes he made in the last question in the late show.

Let us go back to the 16 years. He was wrong on it in the last late show and he is wrong on it tonight.

Here is how it happens. There is a 15-year term. Absolutely, I totally agree. These investments can be extended for another 16 years to make 31 years, correct again, but only on those investments that have already occurred in that 15-year period. The FIPA is not extended for another 31 years. That is a clarification. Clarity does not hurt a thing. We are happy to have clarity.

Let us look at Canada's exporting, let us look at what runs this economy, and let us understand the importance of trading with the growing economies of the world, including China. The hon. member ignores a number of facts here. He ignores the fact that China, today, is the second-largest economy in the world. He ignores the fact that China holds probably the largest reserves of foreign currency in the world. We do not know that for certain, but it is right up there in the top two or three holders of foreign currency in the world.

Somehow or another, we should not trade with this economy that by 2030 will be the largest economy on earth. Have we lost our minds in this country? Do we not understand that the Pacific Rim countries are the economy of the future? Canada needs to participate in that economy. We need to be part of it, along with the European Union, along with the trading partners that we already have. We have to have fair and balanced trade, and with the FIPA, we need to protect Canadian investment that already exists in China. It is not about trading just tomorrow. It is about protecting investment that is already in place, and those companies and the work they are going to continue to do in China. This is a very important and significant relationship.

We are moving forward. We are moving forward with a very ambitious pro-trade plan. We understand the huge market in Asia, not just in China but in Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea and India. There are tremendous opportunities for Canadians.

Let us look at our Canadian foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China. It will provide stronger protection for Canadians investing in China. It establishes a clear set of rules under which investments are made and under which investment disputes are resolved. Canadian businesses looking to set up in China cannot be treated less favourably than any other foreign company looking to do the same.

The foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPA, 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. It is important to note that ours is the first bilateral investment agreement that China has signed that expressly includes language on the transparency of dispute settlement proceedings.

Fundamentally, this treaty is about protecting the interests of Canadians investing in one of the world's most dynamic and high-growth markets.

[CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of this debate. It is always interesting to me how sometimes we in this place can take some pretty straightforward, basic information and turn it into something that really does not reflect that straightforward, basic information at all. Talk about patent nonsense, fearmongering and misleading information from the member who just stood up. It is beyond the realm. For the record, I think it is time for full disclosure.

I listen to CBC Radio and I watch CBC television. The hon. member may find that hard to believe. CBC does a pretty good job, but that certainly does not put it beyond the reach of transparency. What is wrong with openness and reasonable and responsible transparency not on personal, highly secretive information, not on giving some other company a corporate advantage, but reasonable and responsible transparency? I think that is really what the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert is talking about. If we cannot have that discussion in this place, then are we saying that we do not want transparency anywhere, that nobody, members of Parliament, members of the Senate, members of the RCMP, should ever have oversight in place? Are we saying that no one should ever be checked upon? We are talking about a multi-billion dollar crown corporation. Do we not want to have some openness and some transparency? Do we not want to let the full light of day shine upon certain aspects of how this corporation works? I really question where the hon. member is coming from.

Members on both sides of the chamber know that the Information Commissioner, for instance, is the independent entity that balances the legitimate interests of government in the protection of records and the public's right to know. It is a balancing situation. We just do not kick the doors in and say there is all the information. We take it piecemeal and we look at it, because there is proprietary information, there is information, quite frankly, that should remain private, but there is a lot of information that the public has a right to know.

We are going back to 1983 with the Access to Information Act. This act is three decades old. This is not something that just came through the mill. It is a guiding principle that government information should be available to the public and that any necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific.

How can the member say that this is some kind of a witch hunt against the CBC? What the opposition is saying about this legislation is incredibly misleading. The bill deals with the CBC, a multi-billion dollar crown corporation that Canadian taxpayers pay for and how access to information requests should be managed.

I will provide the House with a little content, a bit of history, about the corporation before I really discuss the fine details of Bill C-461.

CBC/Radio-Canada began well before the days of television. A lot of members in the NDP would remember those days when Canadian radios were severely lacking Canadian content and coast to coast coverage was not heard of let alone planned for. The CBC, as we know it today, really came into being in 1936 when the Canadian Broadcasting Act created the CBC as a crown corporation. The 1950s brought CBC into the world of television.

The CBC gains a significant amount of its revenue from advertising sales. However, it still receives nearly $1 billion a year from the government and the taxpayers of Canada and that is what separates it from broadcasters whose funding is solely from private sources.

I know that I will have to finish my remarks another time, but to turn now to the relationship between the CBC and the access to information regime, my colleagues will remember that in 2006 our government succeeded in delivering its first major piece of legislation. It was the Federal Accountability Act, which accomplished a number of important things. In short, what we are talking about here is simply reasonable, responsible accountability.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to an ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union, an agreement that is expected to boost Canada's economy by the equivalent of $1,000 for every Canadian family.

Shamefully, the NDP and its anti-trade allies consistently oppose our government's plans to open up new markets for Canadian exporters. The former NDP trade critic and MP for Windsor West has said that he supports the efforts of big union bosses to stop any further trade negotiations with Korea, Japan and the European Union. Another former NDP trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, summarized his party's views when he said that free trade has cost Canadians dearly.

A leopard cannot change its spots and the NDP cannot hide its anti-trade agenda. In challenging global economic times, Canadians know that it is only our government that has a pro-trade plan to generate jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Foreign Investment, February 6th, 2013]

Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to lead off in a misleading way on 31 years, so I will come back to my original statement about the 31 sitting days that this agreement was tabled in the House. Why did the NDP and the Liberals shy away from debate? They had ample opportunity to debate this. They wanted to draw this out and make something more of it than it actually was. That ruse simply did not work.

As I said before, our government signed this agreement to help protect the interests of Canadian investors, particularly Canadian investors in China. I would point out that our government has brought transparency to the treaty process by tabling it in the House of Commons. It should be very clear that it was not the Conservative Party that chose not to debate it. It was the Conservative Party that chose to table it. It was the NDP that chose not to debate it in the House of Commons for the country to hear.

This is very similar to the other 24 investment treaties we signed with key trade and investment partners. It establishes clear rules for Canadian businesses when they are investing abroad.

[Foreign Investment, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the part of the speech that the member for Vancouver Kingsway got correct is the fact that China is the second largest economy in the world. It will more than likely be the largest economy in the world by 2030.

The most egregious and incorrect part, among many, in his speech is that this would sign Canada up for 31 years. It would be renewable up to a period of 31 years; it does not sign anyone up for a 31-year period. The other issue on which he is, quite frankly, incorrect is the idea that it would prevent Canada from enacting legislation or public policy to benefit Canadians. That is absolutely incorrect.

I am going to try to sum up the issues. I know we have limited time, but it is an important issue and I want to take some time to discuss it. However, before I start, another point is the fact that prior to our government coming to power in 2006, treaties were not tabled in the House of Commons for 31 days and there was no opportunity to discuss those treaties. Yes somehow we are hearing a lot of rhetoric about the government not discussing this treaty. We tabled the treaty in the House of Commons for 31 days. They were 31 sitting days and thus 31 opportunities for any opposition members to discuss this treaty if they wished. However, the reality is that they really do not want the bright light of the sun to shine on this treaty because it would refute the accusations they are making against it.

Trade is part of the powerful engine that drives the Canadian economy. We moved forward with a very ambitious pro-trade plan, opening new markets for Canadian exporters, including in the very fast-growing Asia-Pacific region. We moved aggressively, expanding commercial relations in the region to create jobs and economic benefits. The economic benefits and opportunities are tremendous there. Asia-Pacific countries represent huge markets, with economic growth rates two to three times the global average. By doing this, we are creating the right conditions here at home for Canadian businesses and exporters to compete and succeed internationally.

An important part of the equation is ensuring that two-way trade and investment between Canada and other countries, including China, takes place in a stable and secure manner. That is why we have signed over 24 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements with key trade and investment partners, including China, the world's second-largest economy.

Let us be clear. What would happen if we do not sign these agreements? We would be working in a system without clear rules, without parameters, and without clear guidelines. Thus, it is important to note that as a result of this agreement, Canadian investors in China would no longer have to rely upon the Chinese legal system to have investment disputes resolved. Let me be clear: This agreement would give Canadian investors in China the same types of protections that foreign investors have long had in Canada.

I have to ask the member opposite, why would he deny Canadian investors the same benefits abroad that foreign investors have in Canada?

[International Trade, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, where is the hon. member's question is coming from? We have been clear in every aspect of the CETA negotiations with the Europe Union. We regularly consult with provinces and industry.

Part of the member's question was about supply management, although he spoke so fast I could not hear it all. However, we certainly defended the supply managed sector.

The reality is that this is a good agreement for Canada and we will negotiate in the best interest of Canadians and only sign a deal that is in our best interest.

[International Trade, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. As a matter of fact, I reject much of what the hon. member says.

The reality is that our negotiators are focused on remaining issues. We are working on behalf of Canadians. We are working to produce jobs and opportunities for Canadian exporters and Canadian workers, and we will continue to do that.

[International Trade, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to creating opportunities for Canadian businesses and workers, including in London West.

This week the Minister of International Trade is leading a trade mission to Ghana and Nigeria. He is accompanied by representatives from 28 Canadian companies, promoting industries in high demand in developing countries.

Canadian companies are creating jobs and prosperity throughout Africa. This is yet another example of how deeper trade is a win-win for Canadians and for our trading partners around the world.

[Foreign Investment, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members just continue to make it up as they go along.

This foreign investment and promotion protection agreement with China will simply add reciprocity to investment in China. This will protect the interests of Canadian investors in China. Foreign investors have long had those same legal protections in Canada. This agreement will give Canadians equal protections when investing abroad.

What does the NDP have against investment? What does it have against trade? When will that party stop being an anti-trade party?