House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was negotiations.

Topics

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Madam Chair, my hon. colleague from Welland raised some interesting points.

We cannot look at this as taking a one-pronged approach that is just about trade. Canada is an amazing country. It is full of natural resources, minerals, steel, all kinds of things that we export to the rest of the world. However, we have to do a better job if we are to move into a knowledge-based economy.

We have to transition ourselves from exporting our resources to looking at value-added resources. How can we commercialize technology in our country? We have spent a highly proportionate amount of money on research and development. I believe Canada is number one or two in the G8. That is a good thing.

I look at what this government has done with the FedDev program and the Regional Development Agency in southwestern Ontario. We have taken a number of great initiatives and they are crucial if we are to continue to compete in a global market and as we go to a knowledge-based economy.

We have programs under FedDev right now such as the Ontario advantage program, which is an applied research and commercialization initiative. We have invested in business innovation. There is the graduate enterprise internship program. We have scientists and engineers in business. We have technology development programs. The prosperity initiative was just launched. We have youth programs. We have the Canadian innovation commercialization program. These programs will help us as Canadians to compete, to develop great goods.

We do not have to look very far down the road from Niagara to Waterloo, where a little company called Research In Motion is located. By expanding markets, we have helped this company sell its products. We would never use all the phones this company produces in Canada.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation

Madam Chair, NDP members always oppose free trade, yet that party claims it wants to help workers.

Canada's population is 32 million. One factory with 500 workers would meet the demands of this agreement. A free trade agreement helped RIM sell its goods all over the world. This free trade agreement will open up markets. Factories will be built in the country and workers will be employed to work in those factories. The most important thing is that more people will be working and there will be more factories.

The NDP says that it supports workers. How will those members support workers when factories are shut down because there is no market? Free trade agreements provide markets so people can work in the country.

Is that not right?

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Madam Chair, I would like to finish off my line of thinking from the last question. We do have great companies in Canada. There is no question that we have shown that we can compete on the world stage.

I mentioned SNC-Lavalin as an example. I just mentioned RIM. If we were not a free trading nation, if we did not have the opportunity to trade these goods, then Research In Motion would not have the kind of market share it has around the world. It would not be able to employ the number of people it employs in Waterloo.

This is not just about what Research In Motion does in Waterloo. It is about all the spinoff jobs that come from that company. It is about all the opportunities that are available. It is about all the technology companies that meet in a cluster around Waterloo. It is about OpenText. It is about all these other companies that help build the economy.

Free trade is important because we need to have a place to sell our goods. This government has done a great job in recognizing the fact that we have to do a better job commercializing the great technology we have in Canada and the great work we already do here.

It is important to create new markets for us to sell our goods.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to be in the House at this late hour with a multitude of my colleagues sitting around waiting for this speech to take place.

Before starting my speech, I would like to comment on something the hon. member from Alberta said a few minutes ago about jobs and the equation that the more agreements we have, the more jobs we will have.

I am wondering if he is aware of the fact that since FTA and NAFTA, we have lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Canada alone. After the softwood sellout many lumber mills have shut down. The border has been closed to beef in spite of NAFTA but it is opening. And of course we have had the loss to farmers with the dumping of apples. Then we have the famous chapter 11 where corporations have sued. The hon. member from Newfoundland mentioned that when talking about AbitibiBowater.

There is another way of looking at agreements. I would submit that this agreement is not about trade. This agreement is about control. This is an agreement about our sovereignty. I would go so far as to say that CETA is another nail in the coffin of the sovereignty of Canada.

I would go further to say that perhaps the next election should be fought on the control of our country. Those who are in agreement with our country, with our sovereignty, with fair trade, with jobs for Canadians, should be on one side regardless of party. People who want to continue down the road to more trade and try to open up more markets, shutting down jobs and sending jobs offshore, should be on the other side. Let us have a debate in the next election about the future of our country. That is what I would like to see.

In my questions earlier, I referred to a very interesting and thorough legal opinion by Steven Shrybman of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, for the Centre for Civic Governance at Columbia Institute. It talks about municipal procurement.

I am going to spend the majority of my 10 minutes quoting from this document because I think it is very relevant. I am happy to see that some of my colleagues in the House have a copy of this document, and they have already brought it up.

On the first page we see a letter by Charley Beresford, the executive director of the Columbia Institute, saying the following:

Sub-national public procurement in Canada had largely been left out of earlier international trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the FTAA.

In other words, our municipalities did not have to worry about that under NAFTA, but then when we gave away a lot in this buy American deal, the Canada-U.S. procurement agreement, this came into play.

What happened is that we got the short end of the deal. Whereas communities in the United States said that they were going to continue with local procurement, we opened it up, and we sold out.

What this document is saying, and the research is saying, is that the European Union agreement is an extension of what we started giving away with the buy American agreement. It states:

The EU has made specific requests for full access to public procurement in cities across Canada, including the right of European multinational corporations to bid on core municipal services, such as public transit systems, water services and wastewater treatment. The leaked CETA documents explicitly propose that environmental and local economic development considerations be excluded as factors in procurement decisions, and the deal would open up opportunities for corporations who don't get their way to tie municipalities up with expensive legal challenges.

In other words, our tax dollars will be going to defend our communities against these legal challenges, just as they have gone to defend our country against legal challenges by corporations under chapter 11 of NAFTA. I repeat, this agreement is not about trade, it is about control.

Let us look further at this document prepared by Steven Shrybman. He says:

For example, Canada proposes to provide corporations with a virtually unfettered right to invoke international arbitration to seek damages where they claim a Canadian government or other public body has failed to comply with the investment rules of the regime.

Further on he talks about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities:

...and the FCM has also called upon the federal government to preserve the right of municipalities to insist on local content and job creation as conditions of procurement. In setting out the principles that should guide Canadian trade negotiations, the FCM stressed the importance of:

Canadian content for strategic industries or sensitive projects: A trade deal must recognize strategic and public interest considerations before barring all preferential treatment based on country of origin.

I will go on and talk about some excerpts from page 4. It states:

To put it simply, proposed CETA rules would permanently remove the option of using procurement in this manner. Thus under CETA, municipalities would no longer be able to restrict tendering to Canadian companies, or stipulate that foreign companies bidding on public contracts accord some preference for local or Canadian goods, services, or workers. As a result, municipalities would lose one of the few, and perhaps the most important tool they now have for stimulating innovation, fostering community economic development, creating local employment and achieving other public policy goals, from food security to social equity.

It also states that the agreement would target local food security. In other words, according to the research and the study, it would prohibit municipalities from using procurement for sustainable development purposes, such as promoting food security or adopting local food practices. Tell that to the folks in Toronto who have initiated the tremendous local food initiative or all those initiatives right across the country.

I repeat, the agreement is really not about trade. It is about gaining access or control of our way of life by European companies with the support of their governments.

I alluded to the recently concluded Canada-U.S. procurement agreement. It is a remarkably one-sided agreement, where most benefits flow to U.S. companies.

The argument and the hope is that we will open up more markets. I would like to note that we already have access to 20,000 tonnes of hormone-free beef, recently opened out of Europe. Our high-quality protein wheat and durum has no tariffs in the European Union. Although, wheat producers would like no tariffs for low-quality wheat.

Let us move on and see what the rest of this document says. It states:

Most importantly, given the failure of CETA proposals to preserve the right of municipalities to insist on Canadian content for strategic industries as the FCM called for, it would be reasonable to renew calls for the Federal Government to provide clear assurance that it will not trade away the authority of local governments to use procurement to achieve economic, social, environmental, sustainability and other valid public policy goals.

So far, I have not heard any assurance from our federal government in this regard.

To see how it can affect specifically, let us look at the province of Ontario and the Ontario Green Energy Act. This agreement could target that act. This act includes significant domestic content requirements for the procurement of renewable energy projects. According to this new policy, at least 25% of wind projects and 50% of large solar projects must contain Ontario goods and labour. CETA, with an agreement signed, according to the document that has been leaked, will do away with all of this.

The capital region district of Victoria is promoting environmental innovation with respect to the management of waste water. This would also come under scrutiny and threat of an agreement signed with the European Union.

I have already talked about food security.

Is it protectionism then to want to ensure that we have Canadian jobs or to ensure that we get the best deal and fair trade deal, as my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster often talks about?

To begin with, procurement was not, until the advent of a WTO agreement, a subject for inclusion in any international trade agreement. Canada has been a trading nation from its birth as a nation. We have traded with countries. We have had debates over free trade over the years of our history. Never before has the idea that local procurement or the control of water, sewage, energy products, or the building of municipal arenas or recreation centres would come under the scrutiny of some kind of trade agreement. As I mentioned, this was exempt even under NAFTA. Now all of this is into play, and I submit that it is not worth it.

Every agreement has its pluses and minuses, and we as parliamentarians have to have a really strong debate about whether it is worth signing away our sovereignty in order to get a few more supposed contracts from a union that has very protectionist policies of its own.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation

Madam Chair, of course, it is a well-known fact that the NDP would never support any free trade agreement deal with any country. It will always put barriers to them, despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that free trade around the world is beneficial to all humanity. The WTO has irrefutable evidence, but that evidence the NDP will never accept.

He is talking about giving away sovereignty. Nobody is giving away sovereignty here. What we are talking about is an agreement between two countries that is beneficial to them and to us, as are all agreements that have been made by Canada.

It is amazing how the NDP says we have been a free trading nation all our lives, but for some reason they forget the fact that all the free trading that they were talking about, before governments came into play, was free trade.

The free trade agreement also allows us to set standards that are important to Canadians, the labour code, human rights, all these things, and to work with these countries to ensure that Canadian values are also there.

It is of importance to Canadian values to have a free trade agreement. I do not understand why the NDP would not agree to that.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Madam Chair, I have been here since 2006 and I have seen a progressive erosion of our Canadian values under the present government. I have seen it trying to get these many deals, at the expense of human rights and at the expense of our farmers.

We have a WTO agreement that has not been signed. Right now, if it is signed, according to the language, each dairy farmer in Canada will lose $70,000 because of the increase in quota. The Canadian Wheat Board will cease to exist because it will no longer be able to get guarantees from our government.

In regard to agreements, as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said, we have supported the Auto Pact, which was a fair trade agreement. There is no reason that we cannot trade with a nation and have a fair agreement, but I would like to submit that it is not easy to have a fair agreement with a big conglomeration of nations, just as it was not easy to have a fair trade agreement with the United States, and we have seen that in the softwood lumber sellout.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Chair, I was very pleased to listen to the terrific speech from the member on this take note debate regarding the Canada-EU free trade deal.

We are certainly aware of the uncertainties in Europe at this time. We have stresses in Spain, Greece and Ireland. Protectionism potentially is on the rise and could continue.

The question I have for the member is this. Is he confident that, at the end of the day, the final ratification and implementation of this agreement is even possible with all this upheaval in Europe?

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Madam Chair, my hon. colleague always has very thoughtful questions because he researches his material and he understands the issues.

It is ludicrous to expect that the European Union will enter into a fair trade agreement with Canada. We have seen the devastating effect that the euro has had on countries such as Greece, Spain and Ireland that have bought into the euro. There are even many advocating in those countries for a return to their currencies so they can devalue their currency and at least get out and have some jobs. This is going to continue, and here we are, signing an agreement and hoping that things will continue as they are. I would like to submit that it will not.

The other very frightening or disturbing aspect is that they are very protectionist. To this day, we have only 0.5% of their total pork production allowable tariff-free; and over there, they want us to do away with our tariffs for dairy. As I said earlier in my questions, and I posed this to the Canadian negotiator, European cheese could come onto the table at the very last minute, with them saying, “Okay Canada, accept the fact that we can flood your market with cheese and we will sign the agreement”.

If we do that, there goes $70,000 for each dairy farmer and there goes our supply management system.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Madam Chair, the hon. member spoke at length. I would like to say that I appreciate his comments, but frankly, to the House and anyone listening, I really do not appreciate his comments. He does not support trade. I do not know, and I hope none of us would ever find out, what a nuclear wasteland would look like, but I think it is something that the Canadian economy would look like if his party ever gets in charge of the reins to direct it.

There are a couple of simple terms, for those with a bit of an agricultural background, and I understand the hon. member professes to have some. Those are “gee” and “haw”, where we can turn a horse, because it has blinders on, to the left or to the right.

The member made a comment that there are pluses and minuses in every trade agreement. So I would like to hear some of the pluses in the trade agreements that we signed. I will list those agreements for him.

We have signed a trade agreement with the United States. We have signed trade agreements with Chile, with Israel, with Colombia, and with Costa Rica. We signed a trade agreement recently with Panama, and it has gone through the House now, clause by clause.

So I would like to hear some positive accomplishments from those trade agreements.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Madam Chair, we have had some increase in trade with Mexico that has worked.

I think the question going back to him is, is it worth selling out our sovereignty to sign some kind of trade agreement? I would just like to ask him which side he is going to be on when we are facing Canada with the question to preserve Canadian sovereignty or to continue selling off our country to become the 51st state in the United States of America.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Madam Chair, I thank the member for British Columbia Southern Interior for standing up for this country.

As he knows, we have had hundreds and hundreds of emails from activists across the country and many people have been watching the debate tonight. Obviously the Liberals are going to rubber-stamp whatever the Conservatives bring forward. That is clear yet again. The Liberals basically follow along and do whatever the Conservatives tell them to do. The NDP is the only party standing up for Canada in the House of Commons.

So the question is, what should people be doing? What should the activists who are tuning in, the people who are writing emails, be doing to make their member of Parliament know that they are concerned about this deal and all the ramifications that we have discussed tonight? How should Canadians be getting their voices heard, besides through the NDP in this House, to ensure that these Conservative and Liberal politicians know full well that Canadians are watching them and they do not like the aspects of this deal and increased drug costs that put our--

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior has a minute to respond.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Madam Chair, the main thing that Canadians can do today is to contact every member of Parliament, especially those from the Conservative and Liberal parties, and point out to them, for example, the document that I referred to; point out to them the document prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which talks about negotiating from weakness; point out to them their concerns so that when they come here to the House to debate this bill they will in fact start reflecting the concerns of their constituents and the wishes of those who want to save Canada and preserve our sovereignty in a fair trade agreement and not continue to sell out this country as we are doing now under the Conservative government.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, and I should warn him that he has 30 seconds only.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Madam Chair, I have 30 seconds left. Maybe I could wrap this up, which is almost impossible to do in 30 seconds.

My question for parliamentarians and for all Canadians is this: do we want jobs and opportunities? That is the question.

There are jobs and opportunities for workers. There are jobs and opportunities for businesses. There are jobs and opportunities for all Canadians in this free trade agreement. I believe as a member of Parliament representing South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia that we should go after those jobs and opportunities.

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Chair NDP Denise Savoie

It being 10:25 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.

(Government Business No. 9 reported)

Economic Negotiations with the European UnionGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.)