|
If you believe everything you read on the Internet and in some
letters to the editor, you have likely heard false and erroneous claims that Canada is essentially being given away to China as a result of a secret FIPA (foreign investment promotion and protection agreement) that has been hastily put together solely to give away our Country’s natural resources. Let me state for the record that such claims are complete nonsense, and in many cases are intentionally fabricated falsehoods that use fear-mongering and misinformation in order to mislead others. While stating personal opinion is an important and fundamental aspect in our free and democratic society, I remain concerned how online information, or in this case misinformation, is increasingly being used in an effort to deliberately deceive Canadians. My report this week is not in any way intended to seek support from those who oppose measures that encourage trade but rather to provide factually correct information so citizens can have a more informed point of view. What is a FIPA? Contrary to what you may have read, a FIPA is not a formal trade treaty but rather is an agreement between two different countries that outlines the rules, obligations, administration and dispute resolution mechanisms that can both protect and promote foreign investment in each other’s respective country. In essence a FIPA agreement establishes important guidelines that promote a fair and transparent process for those investors looking to do business in another country. FIPA agreements are not new, in fact the current proposed FIPA agreement with China actually began negotiation almost twenty years ago back in 1994. Further, these agreements are not “secret”! The current 31 page proposed Canada-China FIPA is publicly posted online with 24 other FIPA agreements that have been reached with various countries over the past two decades. Please contact me if you are interested in viewing any of these agreements. Does a FIPA agreement “hand over” Canada’s Natural resources? Absolutely not and any claim that it does is patently false. Acquisitions of Canadian resources by foreign investors are subject to the Investment Canada Act that cannot be over ridden by a FIPA agreement. Further, it is specifically written into the Canada-China FIPA agreement that decisions made under the Investment Canada Act cannot be subject to the dispute settlement provisions in the FIPA agreement. I will be happy to share the exact language directly from the FIPA agreement on this or any point to confirm this information to anyone who is interested. With respect to the Parliamentary process on a FIPA agreement, these agreements must be tabled in the House of Commons for 21 sitting days of Parliament. During this time the Opposition, through Opposition day debates, has the opportunity to debate a FIPA agreement or any other issue. To date the Opposition parties have decided not to debate this particular FIPA agreement. I should also add that this particular FIPA agreement was brought forward and reviewed by the Standing Committee on International Trade at request of parliamentarians. Why pursue a FIPA Agreement with China? Canadian exports to China have increased more than 27% since 2010 and as a result, China is now Canada’s third largest export merchandise market. Over the past five years Canada’s exports to China have increased by 77%. This past year British Columbia actually exported more lumber to China than to the United States. Several large scale employers and even some small business operations in Okanagan-Coquihalla are now exporting into the Asian marketplace. As China has one of the fastest growing economies in the World there are increasing opportunities for Canadian companies to grow and expand into China. However agreements like FIPA are necessary to protect Canadian investments and business dealings in foreign countries such as China to ensure our interests are protected by due process. I spoke to an owner of an industrial company several weeks ago as I wanted to know if he saw China as a potential market for his Canadian made specialty equipment for mining. He said that he thought it was a big opportunity but due to what he viewed as a lack of patent and investment protection, he wasn’t interested at this time. Currently Canada has an excellent reputation internationally for a safe place to do business and invest, largely due to our stable way of life and commitment to the rule of law. If we are to expect Canadian companies to grow and expand on their expertise, Government must build that certainty so our we and future generations can benefit from increased investment and expanded trade. I appreciate that there are always those individuals who oppose trade, however it should not in my view be overlooked that we have employers throughout Okanagan-Coquihalla who depend on access to foreign markets that help provide jobs locally and support our regional economy. Dan Albas is the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Coquihalla and can be reached at dan.albas@parl.gc.ca or by phone 1(800) 665-8711.
3 Comments
Never let it be said that democratic diversity is not alive and
well in Okanagan-Coquihalla. Each week I am fortunate to receive a significant amount of feedback from many of the good people who live in our amazing region. I appreciate all the phone calls, in-person meetings, chance encounters at a coffee shop or at community events; these are all venues where meaningful comments and feedback can be exchanged. It should be recognized that there is a huge variety of differing opinions on many issues, however at times there can also be a relatively widespread consensus. One of these issues is the topic on the need for MP pension reform. Much like the opposition to former Liberal Private Members Bill C-428 (a bill that died at the call of the last election and has no standing in this Parliament), the Pension issue has strongly united an overwhelming majority of Canadians. When I was first elected last year one of the first comments I heard was "congratulations" often followed by "something needs to be done about those MP pensions". It was a message I heard loud and clear and was one that I publicly committed to support both here and in Ottawa and can now say that action has finally been taken. Last week, changes to the MP pension plan were voted on and approved that will be more respectful of Canadian taxpayers; these changes will also apply to Senators and ultimately to the public service. The Jobs and Growth Act of 2012 will see the pension contributions for the above groups begin to move towards an equal 50/50 cost sharing model. In addition the retirement age to collect those benefits for MP's, Senators and newly hired public servants will also be increased to age 65. These changes will ultimately save taxpayers some $2.6 Billion over the next five years. This week in Ottawa there will be continued debate on two bills originating from the Senate. Bills S-7 "Combating Terrorism Act" proposes that holding investigative hearings when required would allow the Courts to compel a witness who may have information regarding a terrorism offence to appear in court and provide that information. It is also proposes the creation of new offences that would apply to those leaving Canada, or attempting to leave Canada, to commit an act of terrorism. This legislation is intended to deter persons from leaving Canada to attend terrorist training camps or engage in other terrorist activity abroad. The other Senate Bill is S-11 "Safe Food For Canadians Act". This act proposes a number of actions that include instituting a more consistent inspection regime across all food commodities, implementing tougher penalties for activities that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk, providing better control over imports and exports, and strengthening food traceability. Increased fines are also proposed raising the current maximum fines amount from $250,000 up to $5 million. Later in the week debate will begin on the second budget bill, C-45. If you have any comments, questions or concerns on these or any other Bills before the House of Commons please do not hesitate to give me a call. On a more personal note, I would like to thank everyone who has extended their kind wishes on the birth of my daughter. My wife, kids and I are thrilled with our newest addition to the family and we are grateful for all of your supportive calls, emails and cards that we have received. Dan Albas is the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Coquihalla and can be reached at dan.albas@parl.gc.ca or by phone 1(800) 665-8711. With the House of Commons back in session this week there will be a number of different votes occurring largely on Bills that I have referenced in previous reports that continue to move through the Parliamentary process. Bill C-43, “Removal of Foreign Criminals” will be voted on at the conclusion of second reading debate as will Bill C-37 “Increasing Accountability for Victim’s Act”. There will also be a third reading vote on a Private Member's Bill C-299 “Kidnapping of Young Persons”. Bill C-299 is a private member’s bill from my Kootenay-Columbia colleague, MP David Wilks. Many citizens may recall the tragic Sparwood, B.C. kidnapping of a three year old toddler who fortunately was returned to his family four days after having been abducted from the family residence. This Private Member's Bill C-299 proposes increased minimum sentences for those who kidnap children unknown to them who are under the age of sixteen. Also occurring early this week will be an opposition private member’s motion, M-385, calling for a special all-party committee of MP’s to study and develop a national bullying prevention strategy. There has been some confusion as it has been suggested that this motion was drafted quickly in response to the recent bullying related tragedy occurring in the lower mainland late last week. This particular motion was actually drafted back on May 30th of 2012 and illustrates the ongoing impact of bullying in our society. I believe if we are to take further action against bullying we need to also consider bullying that exists online. As the use of the internet has increased so too has disturbing incidents of cyber-bullying, which in many cases has become almost rampant in some areas on the internet. Social media sites, online discussion forums, comments on media stories are often filled with hate related comments, personal insults and attacks and even at times threats. These types of actions are almost always from those individuals who hide under the anonymity of an internet IP address. As many of you recall, Bill C-30 proposed that those individuals who use the internet for purposes that include crime, fraud, to engage in child pornography, identity theft, or use of threats and violence could have their basic IP contact information made available to law enforcement to assist in an investigation. Contrary to what was stated often in the media, Bill C-30 did not authorize individuals to be “spied on” without judicial oversight. What Bill C-30 did propose was that law enforcement would have access to the same basic contact information in the cyber community as is currently available in the real world from something like a licence plate on a vehicle. As the internet continues to play a more prominent role in all aspects of our society, and in particular with our youth, we must also ensure that we have measures in place to safeguard our most vulnerable from those predators and criminals who use the internet for illicit and illegal purposes. As it stands today there is little accountability online and increasingly the interests of Canadians are being compromised as our means to safeguard the internet are not keeping pace with technology. One point that I would like to emphasize is that no Member of Parliament that I have met is looking to politicize a very important issue. However as a society we must also recognize the need for a balance that we can help to achieve through our democratic process. While we as Canadians greatly value our current online freedoms that include anonymity we must also ask how long we are prepared to stand aside while that same anonymity is increasingly being misused to victimize others through online cyber bulling, fraud, identity theft and other illicit and illegal acts. I am not suggesting for a moment that we create a “big brother” environment online, only that we ensure that law enforcement has the same basic abilities in the cyber community as they do in the real world helping to ensure our streets and communities are safe. As it stands today, a RCMP officer can more readily access the contact information for a hit and run driver than they can access the contact information for an IP address of someone who is posting inappropriate pictures of a minor online. We must also recognize that for many of today’s youth, being victimized in the online community can be just as devastating and harmful if not more so than anywhere else. I believe it is time we increased accountability online and I welcome your views on this topic. As the House of Commons is currently on the Thanksgiving break
week until October 15th there is one area of Parliamentary business that I have yet to discuss in my weekly reports and that is the infamous “Question Period.” It is challenging to try and summarize question period in a logical manner given that the parliamentary procedure involved for question period does not, in my view, follow a logical path. Question Period is undeniably an important part of our democratic process; however, it is also a function where many elected members can often demonstrate some of their worst behaviour right at the moment when most of the Canadian public (through the media) are paying utmost attention. The end result often gives members of the public a rather jaded view (to put it mildly) on how our governance is conducted on Parliament Hill. From my own perspective it is not only members of the public who are frustrated by “QP” (as it is often referred to as) but it can also be equally as trying from the standpoint of being a Member of Parliament. Is there method to this madness? It is important to recognize that question period is largely for the benefit of the Opposition to raise issues of importance and to hold the government to account, at least in theory. However the rules governing question period are not set by the opposition, but rather by parliamentary precedence and while the rules have slowly evolved over many decades, I am likely not alone to question if further reform is not an idea worthy of investigation. As it stands currently question period occurs for 45 minutes each day the House is in session– generally starting at 2:15pm in Ottawa everyday save for Friday when it occurs at 11:15 am. Parliamentary procedure generally dictates the question order and what parties, including independents, follow in the order of question allotments. Parties also have control over who asks questions within the allotment they are provided much as Government has the ability to decide who responds. The biggest challenge to question period that many in the public are unaware of is that questions and answers are time limited, currently the amount of time a Member of Parliament is allowed to ask a question is 35 seconds. Likewise for a member on the Government side of the house, 35 seconds is also the time limit for a response. Members can at times ask a supplemental however it is again subject to the same 35 seconds as is the response from Government. While it is possible to ask a meaningful question in 35 seconds, I am certain most would agree that when it comes to governance, very few answers can be given in such a short timeframe. As a result often questions become comments or statements and the responses follow a similar pattern, all of course with a very political theme. Typically the thirty five seconds in many cases ends up being utilized as an effort to score political points often with quickly delivered commentary that often is more frequently evaluated by the performance of the orator then the actual content. In many ways it is not unlike stand up political theatre however in real terms it only occupies a very small portion of the parliamentary day and effectively overshadows the more important work that occurs in parliamentary committees and during debate on bills. Generally there is far less attention on parliamentary committees and debate unless an individual MP or group of MP’s use profanity or otherwise submit offensive remarks in such cases then it becomes more newsworthy. Fortunately I can confirm that Parliamentary committee work is generally far more productive and unlike question period there is typically much more respect and stronger working relationships between members from all sides of the House. While I do not expect question period to change any time soon it is important to recognize that although it often dominates the media spotlight, the 45 minutes of 35 second questions and answers is only a small part of what occurs on a daily basis in Ottawa. Sincerely, Dan Albas Dan Albas is the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Coquihalla, and can be reached at dan.albas@parl.gc.ca or by phone 1(800) 665-8711. MP report for Okanagan-Coquihalla for the week of Octobr 1st, 2012: A new Lieutenant-Governor for BC10/2/2012 One aspect of the weekly Parliament Hill events cycle that I have neglected to mention in my
recent reports is Opposition day motions. Also known as “allotted day” or “supply day”this is a day reserved for the Opposition to introduce a motion on an issue that the opposition believes is deserving of greater attention. There are twenty two of these days in the Parliamentary calendar that are divided and shared amongst the opposition parties based on the share of seats each party holds in the House of Commons. Last week the Liberal Party held the opposition day motion and this week it will be the NDP. The topic and debate of this week’s Opposition motion will be Employment Insurance. Aside from Opposition Day, there will also be second reading votes on Government Bills C-44 and C-21 including a number of votes on various private members bills. Bill C-44“Helping Canadian Families in Need Act” proposes a number of changes to Employment Insurance Act and to the Canada Labor Code. These changes will help protect the jobs of parents who take leave to care for critically ill children. There will also be new provisions for self-employed individuals to opt in to Employment Insurance for maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits and also an expanded definition of family members eligible to qualify for benefits who are caring for someone who is gravely ill. Another new benefit is for parents of murdered or missing children that will provide a financial grant during this challenging time. These changes, if passed, will be implemented on various dates in 2013. Since this election commitment was formerly announced, I have been presented with a concern that this new program (and the expected 6000 Canadian families that would benefit from this temporary help) would put too much of a burden on employees and employers, I should also add that we as elected officials must always be mindful that there is only one taxpayer and if we were to consider a stand alone program, it would represent higher costs as a new offices, managers and employees to set up the office. That being said, I appreciate hearing what taxpayers back home might have to say on this matter. Bill C-21 The “Political Loans Accountability Act” proposes to ensure that all political loans are treated equally. For example under this act money loaned for a leadership contest would be treated no differently then funds loaned to a candidate for an election. Further the legislation will apply to all contestants, political parties and associations. Terms such as repayment information, the amount of funds borrowed and the interest rate charged must also be fully disclosed, including the identity of the lenders and guarantors. Under the proposed act private corporations and unions would also be banned from loaning funds to political interests and restrictions will also be placed on the total amount of funds that can be borrowed from an individual who is acting as a lender. These proposed changes add transparency and increase accountability to electoral finance and also close some loopholes that exist today. My understanding is that there is general consensus in support of these changes and this Bill is expected to pass quickly. There will also be five different Private Members Bills either being debated or voted on at various stages throughout the week. I would also like to congratulate our very own Nicola Valley cattle rancher Judith Guichon who was named by our Prime Minister as British Columbia’s next Lieutenant-Governor. The Rural ranching community in B.C. is an often overlooked one and I am certain that Mrs.Guichon will serve as an excellent ambassador for the Nicola Valley region. Next week the House of Commons will rise briefly for Thanksgiving festivities and I will be back in the riding from October 9th-13th. If you would like to schedule an appointment please give my office a call. Your input is both needed and necessary and I look forward to hearing your concerns, suggestions and criticisms. Dan Albas is the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Coquihalla and can be reached at dan.albas@parl.gc.ca or by phone 1(800) 665-8711. |
Subscribe to the MP ReportSign up now to get Dan's weekly MP report emailed directly to you!
OR Sign up now to get a monthly MP Report mailed directly to your home. AuthorDan Albas is the Member of Parliament for the riding of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola. Archives
March 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed