The Iroquois had a rule: when making a major decision, consider its effects on the next seven generations.
It’s a good rule, one the Conservatives would do well to adopt. The reluctance of this government to submit the Canada-China FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) to parliamentary analysis and oversight deepens the apprehension many Canadians feel about the way we are pursuing trade and investment with China. Despite the government’s assurances, many remain unconvinced that the FIPA will be good for Canada in the long-term. Even its supporters acknowledge that further study and debate would be beneficial.
Many Canadians are weighing the nature of and the degree to which foreign investment in this country should be encouraged. Canadians want to determine what steps should be taken to minimize future negative impacts. Shoving legitimate questions and concerns into simplistic pro- or anti-trade rhetorical boxes limits our potential to develop trade relations that benefit Canadians now and into the future.
This government demonstrated a scattergun approach to trade with its recent confusion on foreign buy deals such as Petronas-Progress Energy. Such confusion creates instability and raises questions about how this cabinet is making decisions. Surely a more transparent process with clear guidelines can only be beneficial for investors, trading partners and Canadians.
The Canada-China FIPA was negotiated for 18 years, signed on September 9, and tabled in the House of Commons on September 26. Members of Parliament and parliamentary committees have been denied the opportunity to debate it or study its contents. The Conservative government has maintained they are not obliged to allow parliamentary scrutiny since FIPA is a trade agreement and not legislation.
This defensive posture only serves to make us worry more. Given that under the current government Canada has gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $50 billion trade deficit, we cannot simply take it as gospel that a trade deal exempt from parliamentary scrutiny is in this country’s best interest.
Critics argue that FIPA promotes corporate rights at the expense of Canada’s democratic, environmental and social rights and may have negative consequences for this country for years to come. In the agreed terms, FIPA cannot be terminated for 15 years. What’s more, any investments made prior to the date of termination will stand for a further 15 years.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, in contrast, can be cancelled with six months’ notice. The impact of FIPA will be felt well beyond its 31-year duration and Canadians deserve to know it in detail.
It is not just that the process of coming to an agreement subjugates transparency. The agreement itself can mandate secrecy. At the discretion of the contracting parties, the resolution of any dispute may take place behind closed doors — with the public only learning the facts with the final decision. Again, this limits the opportunity for Canadians to ensure that outcomes are in line with what’s best for this country.
Another reason this agreement merits further study is that some experts have noted that it undermines laws passed by the provinces — and may therefore be unconstitutional. The other side of that nasty coin is that if Chinese-owned companies are able to demonstrate that laws — including environmental rules on oilsands production or pipeline construction — passed by Canadian municipal, provincial or federal governments are unfair to their operations they will have the right to sue for billions of dollars in damages, for which Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook.
With so much at stake, who benefits from the decision to keep it under wraps? NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has stated that a New Democratic government would withdraw from this trade agreement if it places Canadian interests at a disadvantage. Canada needs progressive and transparent trade accords that are sustainable well into the future. The NDP sees government’s primary role in trade as the promotion of economic development to build a stronger economy here in Canada and advance our interests around the world.
There may not be a unanimous answer to whether Canadians seven generations from now will thank the Conservatives for the Canada-China FIPA — or bemoan their folly. We should all agree, however, that the agreement has ramifications that could be profound. Even if parliamentary debate is not mandated, this government owes it to the people of Canada to permit and even encourage debate and committee scrutiny.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Anne McGrath
It’s a good rule, one the Conservatives would do well to adopt. The reluctance of this government to submit the Canada-China FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) to parliamentary analysis and oversight deepens the apprehension many Canadians feel about the way we are pursuing trade and investment with China. Despite the government’s assurances, many remain unconvinced that the FIPA will be good for Canada in the long-term. Even its supporters acknowledge that further study and debate would be beneficial.
Many Canadians are weighing the nature of and the degree to which foreign investment in this country should be encouraged. Canadians want to determine what steps should be taken to minimize future negative impacts. Shoving legitimate questions and concerns into simplistic pro- or anti-trade rhetorical boxes limits our potential to develop trade relations that benefit Canadians now and into the future.
This government demonstrated a scattergun approach to trade with its recent confusion on foreign buy deals such as Petronas-Progress Energy. Such confusion creates instability and raises questions about how this cabinet is making decisions. Surely a more transparent process with clear guidelines can only be beneficial for investors, trading partners and Canadians.
The Canada-China FIPA was negotiated for 18 years, signed on September 9, and tabled in the House of Commons on September 26. Members of Parliament and parliamentary committees have been denied the opportunity to debate it or study its contents. The Conservative government has maintained they are not obliged to allow parliamentary scrutiny since FIPA is a trade agreement and not legislation.
This defensive posture only serves to make us worry more. Given that under the current government Canada has gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $50 billion trade deficit, we cannot simply take it as gospel that a trade deal exempt from parliamentary scrutiny is in this country’s best interest.
Critics argue that FIPA promotes corporate rights at the expense of Canada’s democratic, environmental and social rights and may have negative consequences for this country for years to come. In the agreed terms, FIPA cannot be terminated for 15 years. What’s more, any investments made prior to the date of termination will stand for a further 15 years.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, in contrast, can be cancelled with six months’ notice. The impact of FIPA will be felt well beyond its 31-year duration and Canadians deserve to know it in detail.
It is not just that the process of coming to an agreement subjugates transparency. The agreement itself can mandate secrecy. At the discretion of the contracting parties, the resolution of any dispute may take place behind closed doors — with the public only learning the facts with the final decision. Again, this limits the opportunity for Canadians to ensure that outcomes are in line with what’s best for this country.
Another reason this agreement merits further study is that some experts have noted that it undermines laws passed by the provinces — and may therefore be unconstitutional. The other side of that nasty coin is that if Chinese-owned companies are able to demonstrate that laws — including environmental rules on oilsands production or pipeline construction — passed by Canadian municipal, provincial or federal governments are unfair to their operations they will have the right to sue for billions of dollars in damages, for which Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook.
With so much at stake, who benefits from the decision to keep it under wraps? NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has stated that a New Democratic government would withdraw from this trade agreement if it places Canadian interests at a disadvantage. Canada needs progressive and transparent trade accords that are sustainable well into the future. The NDP sees government’s primary role in trade as the promotion of economic development to build a stronger economy here in Canada and advance our interests around the world.
There may not be a unanimous answer to whether Canadians seven generations from now will thank the Conservatives for the Canada-China FIPA — or bemoan their folly. We should all agree, however, that the agreement has ramifications that could be profound. Even if parliamentary debate is not mandated, this government owes it to the people of Canada to permit and even encourage debate and committee scrutiny.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Anne McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment