By Grace C. Visconti

In this brief informative interview for Digital Journal, Don  Davies, MP for Vancouver  Kingsway, discusses the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and  Protection Agreement (FIPPA or FIPA). A lengthy detailed audio interview Don  Davies on Canada-China FIPPA regarding the serious concerns of this  agreement can be listened  to here.

This “biased” deal in favour of the  foreign investor will be in place for 31 years. By that time, Canada’s rich  resources will have been extracted for another country’s profit while  disregarding the rights of Canadians and First Nations in their own country.  With the passing of Bills C38 and C45 where environmental laws were gutted or  deleted altogether, it brings the serious consequences of FIPPA closer to  reality if it’s finally ratified as is without debate.

It’s important that Canadians be well  informed. Check out the FIPPA  Facts page that gives a comprehensive look at what’s wrong with this  agreement for Canada, especially since a debate is not forthcoming which would  enable transparency and allow opposition parties to challenge key points in the  agreement. In this point-by-point rebuttal of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s  spin on FIPPA, Gus Van Harten, lawyer and Professor at Osgoode Law School,  breaks it down in Taking Apart Tories’ Party Line on China-Canada Treaty.

INTERVIEW

Why is there a lack of  transparency with this particular trade deal? What is being hidden in this trade  deal that cannot be discussed in the open and debated in Parliament and with  Canadians?


Unfortunately, the clear practice under  the Conservatives is to be extremely secretive with regards to the negotiating  and substance of trade and investment deals.  To answer the question of why  there is a lack of transparency, one must really ask the Government.  However,   we would suggest the lack of transparency is due to the strategic and tactical  approach of the Harper government who  seek to control information, limit  criticism and shut out constructive dialogue from disparate sources with whom  they disagree.

As the Official Opposition, New  Democrats have pursued all Parliamentary options to shed light on the FIPPA. We  have called for committee studies, ministerial testimony, a Take Note Debate,  and an Emergency Debate. These were all rejected by the Government. We have  asked the Government multiple questions in Question Period and received answers  without substance. Finally, we presented a motion in the House not to proceed  with the ratification of the FIPPA in its current form. Unfortunately, our  motion was defeated.  Both Conservatives and Liberals voted against our motion.

Items of particular concern that are  being “hidden” include the implications of granting foreign investors national  treatment for investments in Canadian strategic sectors (like energy), the list  of “non-conforming measures” that each country is allowed to maintain after  ratifying the deal and details of the secretive arbitration process available to  investors to resolve complaints.

In your response to the  Canada-China FIPPA, as the Official Opposition Trade Critic, you claim that, “The pact does not guarantee Canadian investors full reciprocity with the rights  that Chinese investors have secured and has a clause binding Canada for a period  of 31 years.” Can you explain who this deal is for, why it will not fully  benefit Canadian investors, and how could it be passed if it is one-sided in  favour of foreign investors?

Investment and trade treaties are  supposed to create a ‘level playing field’ for investors in both countries.   However, this FIPPA deal does not require either government to change any  existing regulations or practices that currently exist that inhibit investment;  the FIPPA explicitly allows both countries to maintain “non-conforming  measures.”  Such measures include requirements to use local suppliers of goods,  services and labour and/or to enter into partnerships with local businesses.   This aspect creates an imbalance because China, a command economy, has many  regulations and measures that do not conform with the principles of liberalized  investment. Canada, on the other hand, has been liberalizing trade and  investment rules for thirty years and has far fewer protectionist rules.  Therefore, this deal will subject Canadian investors in China to far more  barriers than will Canada to Chinese investors.

Why do the New Democrats  believe that the only responsible position is to stop FIPPA? Can there be a  compromise if FIPPA is debated and then rewritten in a collaborative way to  bring harmony in the House of Commons, appease Canadians and First Nations about  FIPPA?


New Democrats are not opposed to the  concept of investment protection agreements. Designed properly, they can create  stability for investors while protecting the ability of governments to make  policy in the public interest.

This FIPPA, however, is not acceptable  in its current form. The transparency issues, alone, are unacceptable in a  modern democracy.  Unfortunately, the treaty cannot be unilaterally changed by  Canada because it is a treaty between two countries. For this reason, the only  responsible course of action is not to ratify the treaty unless its serious  problems are addressed.

New Democrats believe that the FIPPA  should be studied by Parliamentarians in an open, detailed manner. We should  invite a broad array of stakeholders (business, provinces, labour, trade  experts, First Nations, the public and others) to appear before the House of  Commons Standing Committee on International Trade and provide their perspectives  and suggestions. Once broad consultations and an accurate understanding of the  deal are complete, New Democrats believe Canada should negotiate improvements to  the deal with the Chinese government.

How would the New Democrats  preserve Canada’s natural resources? What kind of law would you pass and what  would be the parameters for foreign investors? In other words, what would be a  comparable trade agreement for foreign investors?


Canada’s natural resources ought to be  developed by and for Canadians.  Key, strategic economic sectors like energy  must be carefully managed to ensure that economic benefits flow to Canada,  energy security is achieved and environmental considerations are met.  A  made–in-Canada, national energy strategy that encourages value-added production  in Canada is essential.

Foreign investors ought to be treated  fairly. All investors have a right not to have their property confiscated  without fair compensation.  However, disputes must be resolved in fair,  transparent and objective manners in conformity with the rule of law.  We  believe that commercial interests must not infringe on the ability of democratic  governments to legislate in the public interest.

How can the New Democrats  protect labour standards, human rights, and the environment when the omnibus  Bills C38 and C45 were passed thereby gutting a number of rights for the sake of  corporate profit?


The best thing we can do to advance a  balanced approach to trade and investment policy that recognizes and protects  environmental, labour and human rights is to convince Canadians to elect a New  Democrat government in 2015. Canadians are progressive, caring and socially  conscious people, but those values are not reflected in either the current  government, or the Liberal government that preceded it.

In the context of this majority  government, we must continue to scrutinize these bills, propose amendments and  hold the Government to account on their agenda.   The public plays  a crucial  role in a democracy, and the New Democrats will continue to publicize and bring  to all Canadians’ attention the important issues at stake in trade and  investment policy. We believe by engaging and informing Canadians, Canada’s  policies will be improved.