Letter to the Speaker of House of Commons asking for an emergency debate on FIPA

On Monday, October 29th, 2012 in Letters, Videos
Share

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Please accept this letter as further background to the letter I submitted on Friday, October 26, 2012 requesting an Emergency Debate on the investment treaty between the Peoples’ Republic of China and the Government of Canada, signed September 9, 2012, and tabled before this House on September 26, 2012.

In that letter I briefly set out the accepted tests set out in Standing Order 52, submitting that the matter is indeed within the “administrative responsibilities of government,” is a specific matter of obvious and acute national importance to Canada, and is an urgent matter.

I recognize that it is traditional for a Speaker to rule on such requests without giving reasons, and further that on such matters, you are not bound by precedent.  Looking through recent emergency debates, we have had debates on food safety and on drug shortages. In 2009, there was an emergency debate on the Ottawa bus strike, while going further back, in 2003 there was an emergency debate on the approaching war in Iraq, and still further back, in 1989 the House debated the slaughter in Tiananmen Square.  This short review is only to suggest that the matter constituting an emergency is not confined to any one suite of issues.  They can be national, or global; concerned with public health, or local labour concerns.

As my last letter confirms, I will move adjournment later today on the same matter a second time. In doing so, I am inferring that your reasons for rejecting my request October 1st could be related to this portion of the rule: “and the Speaker shall also have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.” 

I submit that the situation has changed between October 1 and October 29, 2012.  As noted, all Opposition Days available to the Official Opposition and the Liberal Party have now been used on other issues.

No doubt, the Minister of Trade is likely to take the same position that he has in response to my questions, and those of other Opposition MPs, in Question Period that if the treaty is to be debated, the option for debate is solely in the hands of the Opposition Parties, or rather with the two out of four Opposition Parties in the House with the right to utilize Opposition Days.

To take aim at this presumption, let me first review the nature of this treaty and of the approval process.

As a matter of international treaty making, and in the absence of any necessity for implementing legislation (as is the case with this treaty), it is true that it is possible to ratify the treaty with no debate or vote in the House.  However, this strict interpretation of what is legally possible runs against a tradition of respect for Parliament in the implementation of treaties. 

Professor Peter Hogg pointed out in Constitutional Law of Canada:

Despite the absence of any constitutional obligation to obtain parliamentary approval, it has been the practice of Canadian governments to obtain parliamentary approval of the most important treaties in the interval between signing and ratification.

(Toronto, Carswell and Company, 1977, p.184)

In this case, the interval between signing and ratification, is September 9 until (at the earliest) November 2, 2012.  Following the convention described by Professor Hogg in 1977, the current administration put in place a requirement to table the treaties with the House between signing and ratification for 21 sitting days.  For minor treaties, the tabling process is adequate, but the tabling process should not replace the convention that on important treaties, parliamentary approval is appropriate.

What can be the purpose of a rule that requires the treaty be placed before the House for 21 sitting days, if there is to be no opportunity for review prior to ratification? 

Given the precedent in constitutional law described by Professor Hogg, it is clear the onus to allow Parliamentary review for significant treaties is that of the Privy Council Officers, not of the opposition parties.    Nevertheless, even if the proposition that the onus rests with the larger Opposition Parties, it certainly deprives members of the two recognized parliamentary parties with less than twelve members, as well as the two recognized Independent MPs of any opportunity to debate the issue, if the emergency provision is unavailable.

Returning to Professor Hogg’s rule, would we consider the Canada-China Investment Treaty to qualify as one that is “most important”?

If ratified on November 2, Friday of this week, as the Privy Council is entitled to do, Canada will be bound by its terms for a minimum of 15 years to 31 years.  Exiting the treaty is far more difficult than withdrawing from NAFTA (which went to a vote in the House) or the Kyoto Protocol (which is the same class of treaty as this one, and which went to a vote.)  To exit the China-Canada Investment Treaty one year written notice is required and any existing investments from China in Canada at the time of withdrawal are covered by the agreement a further 15 years.

The scope of the agreement is massive.  The Peoples’ Republic of China is entitled to make claims for damages against the Government of Canada for decisions at sub-national levels of government for any decision China regards as “arbitrary.”  The decisions that give rise to multi-billion dollar complaints can be those of municipal, provincial , territorial or federal governments, or from decisions of our courts. The nature of the complaint is not limited.  It need only be claimed as “arbitrary.”

It is clearly an important treaty and the Prime Minister and Privy Council should have made provisions for a parliamentary review and vote.  Failing that, the tabling of the treaty for 21 sitting days becomes a ritualistic denial of democracy.

As noted, no Opposition Day debate took place on this topic of the four available since September 26, 2012.  As well, efforts by Opposition members of the Trade Committee to hold hearings on the treaty were unsuccessful.  Only one hour was made available in committee to hear from technical experts.

In sum, whereas on October 1, there remained a hypothetical potential for a debate on this treaty to take place, on October 29th, there is none.  I cannot imagine greater urgency than being four days from the ratification of a treaty that will bind us for decades with the potential to undermine our domestic laws.     

Please allow this one chance for the House of Commons to probe the implications and exchange views on a major investment treaty with the world’s emerging superpower.

Yours sincerely,

 

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament

Print this page

  • Alice Strohmaier

    Go Elizabeth! Thanks

  • Norma

    I do hope your/our concerns are heard and changes made.

  • Zee

    Thank you Elizabeth May!!!!

  • Kim Tuttle

    Thank god you are in there Elizabeth, I don’t know what we would do without you.

  • Lesley

    Thank you Elizabeth May. I am disgusted with our government we no longer have a democracy and the government has just signed the death sentence for climate change in our world.

  • Jim Adamchick

    Insane bill and it will be in effect for 32 years???? Outraged absolutly outraged!

  • Karen Lewis

    Dear Elizabeth, may your voice of reason be heard and impactful!

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorraine.bugera Lorraine Bugera

    Bless your courageous heart and clever mind Elizabeth!

  • kes

    Thank you for your persistence!

  • Chris Avis

    Bless you, Elizabeth for all of your hard work. Where are the NDP and Liberals in this? Why are you the only one standing up for this issue?

    • gragor11a

      Really good question. Where are the NDP and Liberals on this? You can’t tell me that Elizabeth May represents the only party that knows how to create a presence on the InterWeb.

  • Marie-Paule Lacasse

    strongly support your brillant and honest fight for democracy

  • Beth Munroe

    Thank you for trying, Elizabeth. It’s hard to believe Canada is now not a democratic country. Very disappointing.

  • bernard murphy

    it appears the other parties are asleep on this matter, what is that about?…fear they might look like they are following ms may?…shame on them…changes are coming…one way or the other…

  • Eden

    Thank you Elizabeth for your persistence on this paramount issue! I support you 100% and have been gathering signatures on your petition form and raising awareness through social media. Wish I could do more! may Canada remain strong and free past Nov. 2

  • Annie

    Thank you Elizabeth! You are such a bright shining star in this dark, dismal dungeon of present day Canadian parliament. Good Luck – you’re the BEST!

  • alarmed

    I am So grateful for the excellent job you are doing, Elizabeth, and and I heard you say “we can’t let this happen” – I agree! So how can we help? What can we all do to stop this? Even if you have emergency debate approved, will that stop it? Should we call up 10s of thousands of Canadians to protest on Parliament Hill and everywhere else, in every city?

  • gragor11a

    People are working really hard to get this treaty debated in the House of Parliament.

    Why are our MPs being so quiet on the matter? Why is Stephen Harper so dead set on selling us down the river?

    What comes next if they pass this thing without debate?

  • miles

    it is a good thing that you elizabeth understand the destruction that this will do for canada..and it is also a good thing that you have courage and the guts to fight for this. keep up the great work.

  • B. Murphy

    Nothing like covering all the bases and a fine job you did by anticipating where you might get stonewalled; your colleagues didn’t vote you 2012 Parliamentarian of the Year without good reason ! Keep rattling the cage of our dear leader Stephen Harper on the FIPA issue . Please. We are counting on you.

How you can help

Follow Me

facebook-icon Facebook Twitter YouTube Digg

eNewsletter


Learn how to support Elizabeth May with her work in Parliament ALT

Island Tides

Climate negotiations… down to the wire
December 8th, 2014

Harper’s assault on our national parks
November 27th, 2014

Increasing the strength of terrorists
October 16th, 2014

The whole world is marching
October 2nd, 2014

The News No-One Noticed
September 18th, 2014

Green Party Logo

Constituency Office

1-9711 Fourth St
Sidney, BC  V8L 2Y8

Phone: 250-657-2000
800-667-9188
Fax: 250-657-2004

E-mail: elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca

Parliament Hill Office

518 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Phone: 613-996-1119
Fax: 613-996-0850

E-mail: elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca