Gerald Keddy

[Foreign Investment, December 4th, 2012]

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.

[Foreign Investment, December 4th, 2012]

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.

[Public Safety, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to address my comments through the Chair.

If I was incorrect on the hon. member's vote, then I certainly do apologize. I am glad that at least one member of the NDP recognized the importance of arming the border services officers.

The hon. member can take high dudgeon that somehow his actions in this place were misrepresented. However, I have watched the official opposition members every day vote against government policy. I watched them reverse themselves on gun control and trade. I have watched them attempt to deliberately mislead the public. It is a not a pretty sight.

The hon. member can be upset. If I was mistaken, I absolutely correct that and the record can therefore be read.

Here is the deal. CBSA handles over 13 million commercial releases a year, whether those shipments are coming into or leaving Canada. CBSA's enforcement, intelligence and targeting efforts are focused on illegal activities such as trafficking in child pornography, weapons and narcotics. That is a big job and CBSA does it well.

[Public Safety, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first, our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the slain border officer from southern Ontario. The fact that we have lost an officer weighs heavily on everyone who works in border services.

I would like to put on the record that the hon. member had the opportunity a year or so ago when we armed border services officers to support that bill, but he voted against it.

My hon. colleague is stating that it is becoming easier for criminals to smuggle contraband to and from Canada. The NDP claim that border security has been cut, which is patently false. There have been no cuts to front line CBSA officers. In fact, we have increased CBSA officers by 26%.

The member for Windsor West stated that the minister ordered CBSA to stop searching for drugs and guns headed to the U.S. border. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criminals are always finding new ways to avoid detection. It is necessary for the Canadian Border Services Agency to review and update its enforcement policies and priorities to meet these challenges and to make maximum use of the tools readily available.

The responsibility for controlling contraband does not solely rest with border services officers. They are only part of a vast network of CBSA intelligence officers, criminal investigators and other law enforcement partners who work together to identify criminals who would break Canadian and international law.

It needs to be said that organized crime and criminal behaviour requires action on multiple fronts. For example, Canadian law enforcement partners are taking action to cut off drugs at the source by shutting down production. The CBSA is also an active participant in the national anti-drug strategy in which this government has invested over $100 million for federal drug enforcement activities.

The CBSA both produces and receives information and intelligence that it uses to make risk assessments to better target its efforts. I am sure that member opposite would agree that it is a much better use of resources to have our border services officers focusing their examinations of outbound cargo based on intelligence lookouts rather than looking for that proverbial needle in the haystack.

The CBSA engages in a number of outbound enforcement activities in all modes of service, be it postal, highway, air or marine, and will continue to do so.

[International Trade, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have had a bit of an epiphany. I listened closely to the hon. member's language, and really what we are talking about is the fact that the anti-trade party, or the no-trade party, is not at the table. If the New Democrats were at the table, we would not have this discussion because there would not be any negotiations.

The reality is that this goes way back to the days when the NDP vehemently opposed NAFTA. We are talking about 1988 vintage language that is coming from the hon. member. Today, the last time I checked, it is 2012. That is a long way from 1988 and the original free trade agreement with the United States. Surely, the NDP members have learned in the interim that trade is good for Canada, good for businesses and it is what drives this country.

[International Trade, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin. I have heard some rants and some misinformation in the House before, but I do not think I have heard anything that is ever going to beat that. For the absolute unmitigated gall of the hon. member to say that was a pro-trade speech is absolutely mind-boggling.

First of all, let us deal with a couple of issues. The hon. member wants to talk about a leaked memorandum. A leaked memorandum is exactly what it is. That is something that is deliberately leaked by an another party to try to force something else to happen in negotiations. That is what leaked memoranda do, and the hon. member played into that very nicely. He picked it up and did a great job for the European Union.

That the European committee is better briefed than our committee is absolute nonsense. We have met a couple of times with the European trade committee. The first thing we learned is that we were much better briefed than they were in these negotiations. The words “updated and consulted broadly” are absolute nonsense.

Here is the deal. Canada is a trading nation. We are looking at CETA, the comprehensive economic trade agreement to increase trade with the European Union by about $12 billion and about 80,000 jobs, the equivalent of about $1,000 per household in Canada. This is a good agreement for Canada. Our future is tied to trade.

The hon. member actually asked for this late show. It is kind of like a light show, I guess. It is coming up to Christmas, and all of us have the Christmas spirit and a certain belief in make-believe, and the hon. member brings that out well. However, we have to talk about facts when we stand in the House.

The fact is very simple. We have negotiated this in the best interests of Canadians. We continue to brief the provinces on a regular basis. We brief the municipalities. It is the first time ever that they have had briefings from a federal minister for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The reality is that this series of negotiations are to benefit Canada. We will bring this to a conclusion at some point, whether it is this year or early in 2013, and at the end of the day, Canadians will be better off because of it.

As far as public procurement, the offer on public procurement is ambitious. The provinces have signed on to it. The provinces and municipalities have to sign on for public procurement. The hon. member knows that.

With regard to the idea that somehow we are going to cost Canadians more money on pharmaceuticals, this is still being negotiated. The hon. member needs to calm down, wait until the negotiations are over, and then he can stand in the House and speak with some surety. Until then, we will continue briefing the provinces and the municipalities, but we will negotiate the way that every agreement is negotiated. When the final agreement is ready, we will bring it forward.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

It's a press release.

[International Trade, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty important, as even the NDP saw the light that time.

However, on supply management, the NDP does not have to ask the government side but should ask the supply managed sector. It should ask the sector in Quebec. It should ask the sector anywhere in Canada. They will tell the NDP that our government stands up for supply management, and we continue to do that.

[International Trade, November 22nd, 2012]

I am waiting for the light to go on. Okay, we have the light.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition—

[International Trade, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the NDP back to the trade file. The NDP members have been ignoring this file for a long period of time.

To follow up on the member's comments, the minister is indeed in Brussels, doing the job that he is supposed to be doing, putting the finishing touches on a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. That is important work.

As far as the FIPA with China goes, that is important because it will allow us to have rules-based trading with them, something that even the NDP should support.