Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-02-18 11:20 [p.4220]

Madam Speaker, I recall back in 1996 when former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien signed a deal to sell nuclear reactors to the People’s Republic of China, and we gave it the money to buy our reactors. The prime minister at that time said that engagement with China would help our values rub off on them. However, I have been concerned ever since that its values have rubbed off on us: We are more secretive now, and the former government under Stephen Harper signed, in secret, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with the People’s Republic of China, which means that we could be being sued right now in secret tribunals about which this Parliament knows nothing.

By the way, I congratulate the minister on his new role as Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I would ask if he would undertake to allow a full debate in Parliament and review of how much sovereignty we have lost under the foreign investment protection treaty with the People’s Republic of China, which operates entirely in secret.

The post Elizabeth May: How much sovereignty has Canada lost under the Canada China FIPPA? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-11-17 12:07 [p.1979]

Mr. Speaker, it was a breath of fresh air to hear someone in this place reference the Canada-China foreign investment protection agreement, which I have reviewed. I do not think the motion before us is allowable under the terms of the Canada-China FIPA. Acting on this motion is not allowable under its terms.

Under Stephen Harper, with a vote that did not happen in Parliament but solely in cabinet, we gave away the store. In the words of Professor Gus Van Harten, who wrote a book on it, we were Sold Down the Yangtze. I do not know if we can even begin to imagine the secretive and sticky-tape restrictions on us as a country in saying that we would not allow Huawei to do anything that we would not allow a Canadian corporation to do.

I thank my colleague for raising this, and I encourage all members in this place to familiarize themselves with how we have already surrendered our sovereignty to the People’s Republic of China, by way of Stephen Harper’s signature.

Jack Harris (St. John’s East)
2020-11-17 12:08 [p.1979]

Madam Speaker, if the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is right, and I am afraid she may well be, that this is probably one of the most outrageous actions by any government in Canada with respect to its sovereignty, it begs one question: What does the government have to say about it? Many of its representatives were here when that happened. I was here when it happened. We objected very strongly to the secrecy, to the commitment to secrecy, to the giveaway of natural resources implicit in it and to everything else.

There is a particular consequence with respect to Huawei. We may not be able to act in our national interests without significant repercussions, and that would be a terrible travesty.

The post Under Harper, Canada surrendered its sovereignty with the Canada-China FIPA appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-11-17 13:54 [p.1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put this question to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I had hoped to put it to our former minister of trade, the member for Abbotsford.

The discussion of the Canada-China foreign protection and promotion of investment accord comes up a bit in this debate. We really do need to have it studied in committee. By virtue of the fact that it was brought through and approved as a treaty without a piece of legislation, never debated or studied in Parliament nor in any parliamentary committee, members do not recognize that it actually cemented in place unfair rules in the People’s Republic of China vis-à-vis Canadian companies, and gives China access and punishment regimes in secret.

Would the hon. parliamentary secretary commit, as we are bound by it for 31 years, to actually studying what we are required to respect in the Canada-China FIPA?

Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge)
2020-11-17 13:55 [p.1994]

Madam Speaker, most of the House would agree that her intervention is very well warranted. I very much agree in terms of the content and extent of the member’s remarks.

I will say that our government, first and foremost, will always put the interests of Canadians ahead of other countries and other states. We will continue to do that. Other governments will answer for themselves in terms of the agreements they went into. We will look at that, but our government is focused on ensuring that Canadians’ interests are ahead of anyone else. I fully support that.

The post Can Canada commit to studying our obligations under the Canada-China FIPA? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-11-17 12:38 [p.1984]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond, and it is difficult in debate, but the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills put forward a “clarification” of the Canada-China FIPA that does not fit the facts unfortunately. No other foreign investment protection agreements between Canada and other nations include a six-month, secret phase of diplomatic arm-twisting, or sitting on us until we say “uncle”, which is another way of looking at it. We do not have any other agreements that are absent any trade benefits, but are solely investment implementation and promotion sections without benefit for Canadian companies. Nor do we have anything like the Canada-China investment and promotion agreement with respect to the level of secrecy throughout the process.

Does it trouble my hon. colleague that the Conservative motion includes reference to Australia, which is able to take the steps it has taken because it does not have an investment treaty with the People’s Republic of China?

Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill)
2020-11-17 12:39 [p.1984]

Madam Speaker, no, it does not trouble me because, regardless of where we were in the past, this is where we are today. This is what we know today and we now have an urgent need to do something.

The post Canada-China FIPA is unique in terms of secrecy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) 2020-03-11 16:21

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to look back. I know people tend to forget what happened in the 41st Parliament. The passage of the Canada-China investment treaty is one on which we really need to focus. People forget that it exists. I have heard so many members speak to the issues we have in CUSMA, now that we have gotten rid of chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement provisions, that allowed the U.S. government to sue us in secret. However, it was under Stephen Harper that we are now obligated, for decades, to secret tribunals, where the People’s Republic of China state-owned enterprises have the right to lean on the Canadian government in secret, first for six months, and then bring secret arbitration cases, if we do anything that hurts the expectation of profits of corporations from the People’s Republic of China. Would the member be willing to look into the implications of that, which was passed in secret, in cabinet, without a vote in Parliament?

Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville) 2020-03-11 16:22

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that. However, if we were forming government, we would be far more careful about the way we encourage investment from China in our country going forward.

The post We can’t forget about the Canada-China investment treaty from the 41st Parliament appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPAs) and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It struck me with some irony that we were five days away, at the time of Tiananmen Square, from a really brave effort for democracy by a Vancouver Island first nation, the Hupacasath First Nation of 300 souls. They are located not far from Port Alberni, and they have chosen to go to the Court of Appeal to oppose a very dangerous—and I use the word “dangerous” advisedly—investment agreement with the People’s Republic of China. It is a FIPA, a foreign investment protection agreement, that will give the People’s Republic of China rights to challenge Canadian law superior to those rights held by Canadian domestic corporations.

The agreement will apply to the state-owned enterprises of the People’s Republic of China, whether they be Sino-Paper or Sinopec or CNOOC or PetroChina or any other, and not just the oil and gas sector. Any investors from the People’s Republic of China in Canada represent tentacles of the government in Beijing, with boards of directors appointed by the Communist Party and the Politburo of the People’s Republic of China.

This is not merely a statement about the unique characteristics of the People’s Republic of China. The Green Party is the only party that actually opposes the concept of investor state agreements. We do so because, for the first time, trade agreements are being used as a way of diminishing democracy. One of the best trade lawyers in Canada, Steve Schreibman, describes these agreements as “fundamentally corrosive of democracy” and says that they give foreign corporations the right to oppose and to seek arbitrations around any decision, whether at the municipal level, the provincial level, or the federal level, that is seen by these corporations as imperilling their expectation of profit.

In that sense, it is particularly egregious to allow an antidemocratic government to challenge the decisions of a democratic government. The Canada-China investment treaty is different in quality from, say, NAFTA’s chapter 11 in that its enterprises are completely part and parcel of a much larger economy and a government that itself is antidemocratic.

The other very egregious thing about this agreement is that the lock-in, if it were ever ratified, would apply for 31 years, and no future government could get out of it without the permission of the People’s Republic of China.

I ask my hon. colleague if it is not time to agree that this agreement should be scrapped.

Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, deepening Canada’s trade and investment ties with the largest, most dynamic, and fastest growing markets in the world, such as China, is a central feature of the government’s pro-trade plan for creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, this government is supporting economic growth and creating new opportunities for Canadian companies and investors.

The Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is a high-standard agreement and a tangible demonstration of our commitment to help Canadian businesses compete on a level playing field in markets abroad.

In terms of its commitments, this agreement includes reciprocal obligations related to non-discrimination, a minimum standard of treatment under international law, expropriation, free movement of capital, and performance requirements, among others.

This agreement with China is very similar to the 27 FIPAs Canada currently has in force.

This reciprocal agreement establishes a clear set of rules under which investments are made and under which investment disputes are resolved.

Here are some highlights of this agreement.

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. Once an investment is made, a Canadian business cannot be treated less favourably than any other business, including Chinese businesses.

The agreement also protects investors against government expropriation except under strict conditions, and then only with fair compensation.

The foreign investment promotion and protection agreement also ensures that all investment disputes arising from breaches of the agreed rules are resolved under international arbitration, ensuring that adjudications are independent and fair.

Finally, ours is the first bilateral investment agreement that China has signed that expressly includes language on transparency of dispute settlement proceedings. It is Canada’s long-standing policy that all dispute resolutions should be open to the public and that the submissions made by the parties be available to the public.

This agreement does not impair Canada’s ability to regulate and legislate in areas such 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 they provide a net benefit to Canadians and that our national security is not compromised.

It is also important to note that, under this treaty, Chinese investors in Canada must obey all of the laws and regulations of Canada, just as any Canadian must.

In short, the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is similar to the 27 other investment treaties Canada has implemented with key trade and investment partners.

We join countries such as New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Japan, who have all signed investment treaties with China on terms that are similar to and in some cases less favourable than the terms we have negotiated with China.

Furthermore, our government has brought greater transparency to the treaty review process. For example, in 2008, we introduced a formal tabling policy that requires international treaties to be tabled in the House before their ratification or coming into force.

The tabling period is 21 days, during which MPs and the public have an opportunity to review the treaty. In line with this policy, MPs had an opportunity to carefully review the treaty when the Canada-China FIPA was tabled in the House of Commons on September 26, 2012.

We have been very clear with the Chinese government that Canada wants to continue to expand its commercial relationship with China, but only in a way that produces clear benefits for both sides.

By establishing a clear set of investment rules that provide greater protection against discriminatory and arbitrary practices, this agreement will give Canadians greater confidence as they consider whether or not to invest in China.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, these are the pieces, in the short time I have, that I will pull out of her remarks.

It is really important that people understand the difference between being against investment with China, trade with China and opposition to this treaty.

It is very important to stress that the Government of Australia, for example, with a volume of trade with China more than 10 times that that Canada currently has, has made a deliberate decision not to enter into an investor-state agreement with the People’s Republic of China. It is important to understand, therefore, that this kind of an agreement is not a sine qua non. The government cannot insist that we must have trade with China and therefore we need an investment treaty. That is not the case.

That is why it is critical that we say no to ratifying a treaty. We had 21 sitting days in this place, but we never had a single day of a committee hearing. We did not investigate it. We absolutely must not ratify it.

Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 2012, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade received a presentation from trade policy officials on the Canada-China FIPA. The FIPA was also discussed and voted on in Parliament during the proceedings of an opposition day motion of April 18, 2013.

The Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement will contribute to jobs and growth by facilitating investment flows between Canada and China, and by providing a more stable and secure environment for investors on both sides of the Pacific. The reciprocal rules that form the basis of these agreements establish a framework providing investors with a predictable rules-based investment climate and access to international arbitration provides an effective binding and impartial method for the resolution of investment disputes.

As is Canada’s practice, the provisions and procedures for investor-to-state dispute settlement are clearly laid out and emphasize transparency through elements such as public access to hearings and documents.

This agreement with China, the world’s second-largest economy, will provide a stronger protection for Canadians investing in China.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – International Trade appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Here’s the text of the motion:

That this House:

1. agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures;
2. condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and
3. call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

There are three clauses and I have trouble with each one of them. Before parsing the motion to explain the difficulties with all three clauses, let me point out the overwhelming problem: the motion does not call on Stephen Harper’s administration to do anything about the threat of rising greenhouse gases.

The action part of the motion calls for the government to “immediately” (that sounds good!) “table its federal climate change adaptation plan.”  (whoops, where did the action go?)

An “adaptation plan” is all about how to adapt to climate change.  I have long called, as has the Green Party, for a climate adaptation plan.  But I would never call for an adaptation plan with no parallel effort to reduce the climate change impacts to which we will have to adapt.  To do so is to announce we are throwing in the towel. We are abandoning efforts to reduce carbon pollution and will only do what we can to hold back rising seas, adjust to dropping water levels in the Great Lakes and Georgian Bay, plant drought resistant crops, brace ourselves for increased forest fires, loss of Arctic ice, permafrost melt, etc.

It is mind-boggling that the NDP motion failed to call for action.  Did they forget that part?  Were they worried a call for real action to fight global warming would create space for a public policy discussion about carbon pricing and a carbon tax?  Or did they think “adaptation plan” meant some kind of GHG reduction plan? If so, they are out of touch with the key concepts of climate policy in place since the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Back to the top.  The first clause is so sloppily worded it minimizes, rather than underscores, why 2 degrees global average temperature increase really matters.  Why start the sentence with something as weak as “agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency?” Why not mention “consensus of the world’s climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the commitment to avoid a global average temperature increase of 2 degrees C that Canada made in the Copenhagen Accord.”

Weak drafting is one thing, but the next part is much worse: “there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degrees rise in global average temperatures.”   There is grave concern? With the impacts?? That’s it?  How about an accurate statement, like this:

“Scientists have concluded that for human civilization to have reasonable odds of avoiding collapse due to the catastrophic impacts of runaway global warming, concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere must be held below those levels associated with a 2 degrees rise in global average temperature increase, as compared to pre-Industrialized levels.  In fact, in order to preserve Arctic ice, we should strive to keep global average temperature increases below a 1.5 degree rise.”

The way the NDP motion is worded it seems to assume we are going to have a 2 degree rise, and that there are grave concerns with impacts.  It fails to connect 2 degrees with the triggering of runaway global warming, which is a much bigger problem than the immediate impacts of 2 degrees on its own.

Then there’s the second clause.  This is a transparent attempt to wedge the Liberals on the issue.  That’s politics and I guess I should be used to it by now.  But when an issue is as important as whether our children have a liveable world, I am sick and tired of this petty garbage.  The Liberals have a lousy record on climate.  Chretien ratified Kyoto, full marks for that, but he did not put forward a plan. As Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada, I spent years demanding action and criticizing the failure of the Liberals to act.  Then Paul Martin did act and his environment minister, Stephane Dion, put forward a credible plan in 2005.  And in 2006, Harper killed that plan.  That one phrase would not have caused me to vote against the motion, if there had been a call for real action to reduce GHG.  But predictably and tragically it reveals the real goal of the NDP opposition day motion: to make the Liberals look bad by writing a motion in a way the NDP knew the Liberals would vote against.

Why does that matter?  Well, it’s like this.  If you care about climate, you draft a motion in order to create the maximum possible opportunity for it to pass.  You don’t play stupid games.

The NDP did the same thing last week with the Canada-China Investment Treaty motion.  It rejected Liberal attempts to amend the motion such that the Liberals could vote with the NDP.  At least then, the motion was clear and I had no problem voting with the NDP, but I was furious that an issue as important as blocking ratification of the FIPA with China was sabotaged for the shortest term possible partisan gain. (And I was furious that the Liberals voted with the Conservatives… I was in a very “plague on both your Houses” mood.)

The climate crisis is a threat to our very survival.  It sickens me to see petty partisanship trump climate. For God’s sake, put forward motions that have a chance of passing and then twist arms in the Conservative caucus to get a motion that matters.

So that about covers why I couldn’t vote with the NDP.  I would have loved to have seen a unified group of MPs from all the Opposition Parties rise on principle and (hoping against hope) some of the Conservatives who understand the need for climate action might have voted with us to give the Parliamentary call for reductions in GHG a chance of passing.  But since tonight’s motion forgot to call for climate action, maybe we could take a run at a properly worded motion another day.

The post Why I voted against the NDP climate motion appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[lHN9sa_b5LM]

We should all be voting to block ratification, but I can predict as of now that the motion will be defeated, and that is going to be a terrible shame because it will mean that this House has not had a single proper day of hearings, not one day of expert witnesses coming here to tell us what we need to know about this extraordinary treaty that will give the People’s Republic of China and its Communist Party government the right to sue us and lock us in for 31 years.

NAFTA locks us in for six months. The new treaty that was tabled after the Chinese treaty locks us in for 16 years. However, there was not one day of hearings on this. I urge members, before it is too late, to let us find a way to have hearings.

The post Statement – International Trade appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The treaty has never had so much as a day of committee hearings – one hour was allowed in the trade committee on October 18, 2012.  The Thursday motion allowed six hours of debate, but Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who has studied the treaty and led the fight against it, was not allowed a speaking slot.  Her 60-second briefing on October 24, 2012, using her S.O. 31 to alert the public and fellow Parliamentarians remains the only briefing to the House. She will rise in the House today at 2 pm using an S.O. 31 to detail why the motion must pass.

“I call on all Members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation and heedless of whips, to vote in support of the NDP motion today.  While I regret that the NDP did not accept Liberal amendments to achieve a compromise on Thursday, the reality is rejecting this particular treaty could still allow negotiation of a better one if the motion carries,” said Elizabeth May, M.P. for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

All Liberal and Conservative MP’s should ask their party the following questions:

1. Why does this treaty lock Canada in for 31 years, when NAFTA allows 6 month notice to exit, and even the investment treaty with Benin, tabled in the House after the China Treaty, allows exit in 16 years?
2. Why does the China treaty give the State Owned Enterprises from China a six month window for diplomatic wrangling, within which Canadian governments and businesses can lose in behind-closed-doors pressure by China on the Canadian government? No other investment treaty includes a 6-month nation to nation diplomatic process.
3. Why is this the first treaty in years that allows the entire arbitration process to remain secret, allowing Canada only the option of making it public?
4. Why has Australia, with a 10-fold larger volume of two-way trade with China than Canada, refused to enter into investor-state agreements, including refusing to negotiate one with China. Why has Canada not conducted a study, as Australia did, to determine whether these treaties do more economic harm than good?

“Unless every Member of Parliament can get satisfactory responses to these questions, any vote in support of this treaty will be an abdication of our responsibility as Canadians to ensure we are not giving the Peoples’ Republic of China the right to challenge our laws – whether municipal, provincial or federal, or court judgments – claiming billions even for measures taken with no intent or evidence of trade discrimination,” said Ms. May.

“While a courageous First Nations community, the Hupacasath First Nation, seeks an injunction in Federal Court against the ratification of this treaty, Canadian MPs should do the right thing and vote to calls on the federal Cabinet to refuse ratification.”

The post Happy Earth Day: House to vote on Canada China Investment Treaty Today appeared first on Elizabeth May.