Debates of April 18th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

It is with determination that I rise in the House to defend the official opposition motion on the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement between Canada and China. Let me say from the outset that I realize that Canada has always benefited from trade agreements and I recognize the growing significance of emerging countries in these trade relations.

That being said, I will comment on the fact that Canadians' confidence in this government has been breached when it comes to negotiating agreements that have their best interests at heart, namely transparency, reciprocity, equality, and protecting jobs, the environment and communities.

I will draw a parallel between the Prime Minister's recent decision to support the acquisition of two Canadian companies by foreign state-owned corporations—the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC and Progress Energy by Petronas—and the confusion that was created within the investment community as to this government's intentions with regard to foreign investment in Canada.

Throughout the evaluation process of these acquisitions, and according to the Investment Canada Act, the Conservatives turned a deaf ear to Canadians' concerns and refused to consult them. The Prime Minister made his decision behind closed doors, as he did for the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement between Canada and China. No parliamentary committee will conduct a comprehensive study, despite the NDP's repeated pleas.

In its recent report entitled Foreign Direct Investment and the National Interest: A Way Forward, the Institute for Research on Public Policy condemns the fact that the current government did not reassess the country's investment policies and, what is more, created confusion by introducing the concept of “exceptional circumstances”. The report also outlines Canadians' priorities.

[The net benefit test] should explicitly include references to the effect of the foreign investment on opportunities for Canadian management; benefits and compatibility to trade, fiscal and environmental policies; its potential contribution to advancing Canadian international trade and investment objectives (such as reciprocity); and, for completeness, its possible effect on national security. In addition, the description of some of the existing benefits should be clarified.

Again and again the government has refused to have a profound review of the Investment Canada Act. It is the same with this agreement.

I state here that the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, FIPA, is a bad deal for Canada. Frankly, the whole thing exposes the Conservatives' rigid tunnel vision ideology when it comes to economic growth. We have to understand that not every trade deal is a good deal. This deal would tie the hands of Canadian provincial governments. It would expose taxpayers to major liabilities, and ultimately, it would not help Canadian investors break into China's market.

We can do better. We must do better.

Let us examine FIPA a bit more closely. In the explanatory note, we see that the agreement remains in force for a period of 15 years. After this period, either party may at any time terminate it, but for investments made prior to that date, the provisions of the agreement remain in force for a further 15 years.

Let us look also at article 6, on national treatment:

Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investment in its territory.

This means that it must be allowed to expand its operations as if it were a Canadian company.

Let us examine some of the barriers to foreign investment in China, and I will refer again to the IRPP study. When Canadian investors want to invest in China, they have to go through laws and regulations, and this states some of the names of the laws and regulations in China:

Laws and regulations governing foreign investment include the “Circular of the General Office of the State Council on Establishment of Security Review System Regarding Merger and Acquisition of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors” and “Provisions of the Ministry of Commerce for the Implementation of the Security Review System”.

This report says,

Chinese authorities enjoy broad discretionary power to reject transactions, particularly on national security grounds.

As we see, there are a lot of hurdles for Canadian investors investing in China.

Let us briefly compare China and Canada. In 2011, Canada invested $4.5 billion in China. In contrast, China invested $11 billion, that is to say more than twice as much as Canada. That can be explained by a difference in market size.

This figure more than doubled in 2012, when investors from the People's Republic of China invested over $22.9 billion in order to take over, merge with or enter into joint ventures with Canadian companies. Clearly, Canadian investment in China is not in the same league as Chinese investment in Canada.

Let us continue our comparison. Canada is a market economy and China is not. Canada is part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, and China is not. In addition, despite inherent differences between the two governments, Canada has strengthened its diplomatic and trade relations with China over the years, which is important.

However, we must understand that these are two very different economies and governments. It is sort of like having a hockey team play against a soccer team, each with its own set of rules and differences. As a result, there was a need for negotiations to be able to create a level playing field.

As I said in the beginning, Canadians have lost trust in the government when it comes to negotiating in a transparent and honest fashion in the best interests of Canadians. The Conservative government has not shown that it can negotiate agreements that are in the best interests of Canadians. Every time, it lacked transparency, it created confusion by refusing to have clear and transparent rules and it refused to hold consultations and to assess the short- and long-term implications of the ratification of agreements or transactions that will have an impact on our institutions and economy.

For all those reasons, the government should inform the Government of the People's Republic of China that it will not ratify the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to actually address this question to all members of this House.

The Canada-China investment treaty is significantly flawed. It does not protect the environment even as much as the agreement Canada just negotiated with Benin. The whole concept of investor state agreements has been brought into question by cost-benefit analyses, such as those done by the government of Australia, which despite having large investments from China, and vice versa reciprocally, has looked at the issue and has decided that it does not want to enter into any more investor state agreements. They are not in the interests of the country. They still have been able to have all the investments from China they have sought, because China has not pushed them for such a treaty.

This treaty is far too important to go down to defeat based on the Liberals not being able to agree to vote with the NDP and the NDP not being prepared to take the Liberals' amendment. Individual Conservative members, I am sure, will be struggling with their consciences if this comes to a vote Tuesday night on a reasonable amendment to send it to committee.

My plea to all members of this place is that we find a way to compromise between the parties so that we can do what the people of Canada want and subject this treaty to a proper and thorough review in committee.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not really ask a question. However, I will repeat what I already said in my speech.

It is very important to fully review this treaty. We have asked that it be examined in a parliamentary committee so that experts can testify, because it raises some serious concerns for us.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my colleague on this important topic.

It is interesting, and I would like her comment on this, listening to government members talk about what a great opportunity this is to debate the bill. Yet it was the official opposition that gave them an opportunity to debate the bill, an agreement that took 18 years to negotiate.

They say that not passing the agreement will have dire consequences. Yet they will not let it see the light of day. They will not bring Canadians into the secret and let us find out what it is they want us to sign. They say to trust them on a deal that would bind our hands for 33 years.

I want to ask my colleague if she would comment on that, and also on the fact that the executive council has had the opportunity to give the bill royal assent since November. Yet it has failed to do that, with no explanation.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reiterating the importance of further debating this agreement that will bind us to China for a number of years.

Holding a debate to finally shed some light on this issue is an NDP initiative.

It is important to poll Canadians, as well as Canadian investors in China, on the agreement to see if there truly is reciprocity.

Again, I thank the hon. member for reiterating what I said about Canadians losing trust in the government's ability to negotiate in the public interest.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that she wants Canadians to be part of the process. She implied that she wants to see a review take place.

The Liberal Party proposed an amendment that would have done just that. It would have allowed the House to go to Canadians and allow them to have input on this process before it is ratified. Why would the NDP not support Canadians being engaged in this process? Why did NDP members not support the Liberal amendment?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Canadians have their say on this agreement and that, as the NDP requested, the parliamentary committee undertake an in-depth study of the agreement before it is ratified. It is important to consider the experience of other countries that are negotiating with China in order to have a broader perspective of the issue.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak during our opposition day to the motion moved by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. I would like to thank him for the excellent work he does and for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic. As we have all come to realize, the Conservative government has done everything it can to keep us from talking about this.

Canada has always been a trading nation, and the NDP believes that trade, when done correctly, is beneficial for the entire country. However, when trade is governed by ill-conceived policies and even more ill-conceived treaties, the entire country suffers the consequences.

The NDP is in favour of free trade. We have said it time and time again. However, these agreements need to contain minimum environmental and labour standards, and these agreements need to be in the interest of all Canadians. That is important.

Yet, as usual, the Conservative approach is to sign an agreement no matter what the cost, simply to be able to boast about it. They are just signing agreements for the sake of signing them. That approach is unacceptable to those of us on this side of the House.

We are seeing the same approach from the government with respect to the Canada-China FIPA that we are speaking to today, the bilateral agreement intended to protect and promote foreign investment. As was the case with the majority of free trade agreements signed by the government, the government has kept Canadians in the dark throughout and has not consulted with anyone.

I know that my colleagues in the official opposition, led by the very able member for Vancouver Kingsway, will point out many issues that we have with this agreement. Therefore, I would like to use my time to speak to an aspect of our trade policy, the effect of trade agreements and FIPAs on aboriginal rights, interests and land titles.

To understand this properly, we need to take a step back to the very beginning of this nation. The first peoples of North America were trading nations, travelling great distances to exchange goods with one another. Our ancestors had lived this way since time immemorial and continued to do so after the first arrival of people from Europe. Trade even helped create a whole new indigenous nation, the Métis. Through all that time, trade was done respectfully and to the benefit of all sides involved.

That takes us to 1763, when King George III of England issued the royal proclamation that recognized aboriginal title to these lands. He recognized that the aboriginal peoples of this continent had rights and had to be negotiated with. At that time, this was such a revolutionary idea that the proclamation was actually one of the “Intolerable Acts” that eventually led to the American Revolution. That in itself tells a story about how Canada and the United States developed. While in British North America it became practice to negotiate various kinds of treaties from that time forward in most parts of what is now Canada, the Americans went to open war with the indigenous nations.

At first glance, it would seem that Canada's approach of signing treaties with the country's aboriginal peoples was the better one. These treaties helped create a framework for equality, peace and stability in order to build the country.

However, this method only works if it is adopted in good faith and if everyone keeps their word. A number of treaties have been negotiated to date—but honouring and implementing them is a whole other issue. I will spare the House the details of this part of our well-known history.

When we look at trade and investment agreements that Canada has reached with other nations, it is clear that many provisions of those agreements have a direct impact on the rights, interests and titles of our aboriginal peoples.

And yet aboriginal peoples are never represented during the negotiations for those agreements, nor are their interests defended. This is also true in the case of the agreement currently before us. Canada negotiated with China, while completely excluding first nations, Métis and Inuit from the whole process.

This FIPA includes investor arbitration rights that would allow Chinese enterprises to sue Canada “...in cases where the host country attempts to impose new or updated regulations that may interfere with the investor's bottom line”.

A provision like this is in direct contradiction to section 35 of the Constitution and rulings made the Supreme Court of Canada, which state that the government has a duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal peoples in this country.

An agreement like this FIPA would trump all of that and would be a direct threat to the ability of aboriginal peoples to protect our rights and our traditional way of life. The government does not have the right to unilaterally sign away those rights, yet this is precisely what they are doing in this case.

In response to this threat, in January the Hupacasath First Nation asked the Federal Court to stop Canada from ratifying this treaty until it and other first nations have been consulted. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Serpent River First Nation in Ontario are also supporting this injunction.

What is the Conservative response to all this? Silence. Total silence. A stunning level of silence.

I find it quite sad that again we are seeing another indigenous nation in Canada having to go to court to force the Conservatives to simply respect their rights.

This is far from the exception, as Conservative and Liberal governments going back decades have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars every year fighting aboriginal rights in the courts instead of sitting down, accepting what has been law for 250 years, and working toward a resolution with the indigenous peoples of this land.

This case in particular is even sadder, given that indigenous nations of Canada are trading nations, but unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals, we do not believe in trade and investment at any cost. We would never put our health, our culture or our communities at grave risk just to be able to say “I have a deal.”

We would never allow our families to starve nor would we destroy our homes just to be able to say “We improved our standing with another nation.”

We believe in fair trade, in trade that benefits all involved, and that is something that has not changed today.

The government has a constitutional duty. If we are going to truly rebuild this floundering relationship, the government needs to start bringing the aboriginal nations of Canada to the table as full partners. In our trade and foreign investment policies, given our histories on this topic, it would be the most natural thing to do to start with.

Canada cannot reach its full potential without respecting the rights of first nations. It is high time that the Conservatives stopped ignoring this fact. We can do better and we can expect more from the Government of Canada. That is why we oppose this agreement and why we want something better.

If the Conservatives refuse to get on with the task of negotiating better agreements for Canada with our global partners, I would ask them to simply step away from the file and let us take care of it, for that is exactly what we will do in 2015.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things the member said that I take some exception to. When one makes reference to Liberal governments of the past or to Conservative governments, I do not think the NDP can be excused from the issue of not treating our aboriginal peoples with the greatest of respect. In Manitoba, aboriginal or first nations people took the NDP to court on several occasions.

That said, we are talking about the FIPA agreement. This afternoon the Liberal Party took a look at the motion that the NDP is proposing and put forward an amendment. That amendment would have allowed cross-country hearings to be conducted so that Canadians, first nations people, and so forth would have had a venue to come to the table and express the concerns first-hand that they have on the issue.

My question to the member is this: why did the NDP not support the amendment to its motion, which would have allowed for the type of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are concerned is this government's approach to negotiating and the record trade deficit it has racked up.

I do not think that Canadians, certainly not aboriginals, trust this government with this type of negotiation. That is why the first nations asked to be at the table when these issues are negotiated. It is important.

The government is disregarding Canadians' opinions at its own risk. However, when it comes to aboriginals, it has a constitutional obligation, confirmed by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, to consult them and address the concerns they express during those consultations.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before becoming an MP, I had the opportunity to meet a number people in the business community through my involvement in a business venture. I heard about a new strategy increasingly being used by entrepreneurs, which involves having a middleman in China in order to do business there. I would often hear that China was an unusual country, where it is extremely difficult to exercise one's rights. When it comes to the agreement before us today, I wonder why Canada is putting itself in a position that benefits China even more. I get the feeling that Canada is prostituting itself to a growing nation that is trampling on the rights of nations around the world more and more.

How can the government tolerate that? Why did it not hold consultations with our people in Canada to find out how they felt and what they want? We certainly do not want the treaty before us.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

It is interesting to see that this government, the one that labels the NDP and progressives as extremists, is signing treaties in secret with a totalitarian government that violates human rights. In my speech I talked about the importance of our consultation obligation. Aboriginals have a long tradition of negotiations that in most cases ended in agreements that benefit everyone. This government has a mandate to negotiate agreements that benefit all Canadians, not just its friends.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's, Ethics; and the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Science and Technology.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my comments on this debate on the opposition day motion concerning the foreign investment protection agreement between Canada and China by saying that I noted that the comments made earlier today by my hon. colleague and friend, the member for Malpeque, were sound, logical and showed an understanding of the importance of trade and investment for Canadian families and communities.

I think most of us understand that those communities are built on having a strong economy and job creation. Having a good standard of living for Canadians depends upon those things, a strong economy and job creation. That is why the issue of foreign investment is so important for us.

Unfortunately, I have to say that my colleagues and friends in the NDP have again focused on their misguided ideology, which is opposed to trade and foreign investment agreements. As we have seen repeatedly in the past, this is the pattern. In the motion today, the NDP is saying we should not ratify the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement.

In fact, in my view, a better motion from the NDP would have toned down the anti-foreign investment and anti-trade rhetoric and would have highlighted the areas that require improvement. For example, our party believes that foreign investment protection and promotion agreements, FIPAs, are important for Canadians investing abroad as well as businesses here at home, but only if we get them right.

Let us think for a moment about those businesses and who the owners are of those businesses in Canada that invest in China and elsewhere. Very often they are groups like pension funds. They are the companies that are in people's RRSPs. They are in index funds, mutual funds, the teachers' pension funds and others. Many of the Canadian companies, the kinds that are big enough to invest in China, are widely held by thousands of shareholders all across this country. It is important to them that these companies have returns and that the investments they have in other countries have reasonable protections.

Although the Canada-China FIPA has a number of shortcomings that must be examined, completely abandoning the treaty is an anti-trade, knee-jerk reaction worthy of the early 20th century. The NDP can try to deny that they are against trade and foreign investments, but their position is well known. That is why Canadians do not have confidence in them, even if they did remove the references to their socialist faith from their constitution. They can erase words, but it is difficult to erase ideas.

The Liberal Party recognizes that this agreement has flaws, just like so many of the failed fiscal and economic policies of the Conservative government. These are policies that have hurt middle-class families, that have led to hikes in payroll taxes, that have increased taxes on wigs for cancer patients, on kids' clothing and, yes, even on little red wagons.

We have seen the Conservatives' flawed fiscal management. We know that they inherited a $13 billion surplus, the best fiscal situation that any new government ever inherited in this country's history. However, they squandered it and put this country into deficit by April of 2008, months before the recession began. Of course, since then, they have had record deficits and have added over $150 billion to Canada's national debt. That is some fiscal management.

Now on this deal with China, we see other flaws. We see a flawed approach from a government that has repeatedly demonstrated a growing record of economic mismanagement. The Liberal Party has real concerns about provisions in the China-Canada investment agreement, particularly on the issues of transparency during arbitration, termination of the agreement and the length of time the agreement is enforced.

In fact, this is similar to what I heard from my constituents in a public meeting I held on foreign investment issues in November of last year. They were concerned that Canada would be locked in for 30 years. As one constituent pointed out, the North American Free Trade Agreement has to be reviewed more often and it has mechanisms for signatories to pull out of the agreement with a notice period.

They also felt it was important to see greater protection for Canadian companies and individuals when dealing with China. They felt that arbitration should not be held behind closed doors.

Our party has called for a public debate on this FIPA so we can look at the facts of the situation, instead of having a debate littered with misinformation and fearmongering. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the way, my friends in the Conservative Party, did not bring this deal forward for debate and have refused to recognize the obvious flaws that should be corrected to protect our interests as Canadians.

Let us look at the context of this. Just yesterday, in fact, it was reported that Europe is now the world's largest recipient of foreign investment by Chinese firms. Europe received $12.6 billion of investment in 2012. That is a 20% increase from the previous year.

Who would have thought, 30 or 40 years ago, that we would be hearing about the huge investments from China in Europe or anywhere else? It is amazing how things have changed and how the economy of China has developed and, as they have sold so many goods to the rest of the world, how they have developed the kind of funds to do that kind of investing.

However, this NDP motion to completely abandon the Canada-China FIPA would not only keep significant Chinese investment from entering Canada and creating jobs for Canadian workers; it would also ensure this money continues to flow to our competitor countries, like those in Europe that are welcoming that kind of investment, that see it creates the kinds of jobs that maintain and create a good, and a better, standard of living for Canadian families.

The Liberal Party understands the need for foreign investment to grow our economy and create jobs. However, there is a big difference between saying that we are open for business in Canada and that Canada is for sale.

The Prime Minister's government made a complete mess of the foreign investment file.

The government refused to honour the promise the Prime Minister made in 2010 to review the Investment Canada Act in order to clarify the rules regarding “net benefit” and to make the review process more transparent.

The Conservatives' bad management has led to ill-advised decisions that Canadians oppose because the government does not provide all the facts about investments, the commitments made or how they will be enforced.

Meanwhile, investors around the globe are becoming more and more frustrated and perplexed as they look at Canada and say, “What the heck is going on there? What are the rules?”

In fact, the report released today by the Institute for Research on Public Policy says so. It calls upon the government to rewrite its foreign investment rules. It says that up to now, the government has created an impression that Canada does not actually welcome foreign investment. The reports says the government's actions have, “magnified the uncertainty among potential investors”.

Canadians are worried that we are losing out on billions of dollars in foreign investment and thousands of jobs.

In fact, the report to which I have referred talks about the benefits of foreign direct investment in areas like renewable energy, which needs investment.

Let me tell members what else it says in this area about the importance of foreign direct investment. It says foreign direct investment:

...continues to be beneficial to the Canadian economy in other ways. It increases the pool, and competitively decreases the cost, of capital available to Canadian business to develop Canadian resources and create employment and training opportunities. It attracts top management talent to Canada and disseminates management training and expertise into the Canadian labour force. It facilitates technology transfer into the Canadian economy from foreign jurisdictions. And it further integrates Canada into international markets with concomitant reciprocal trade and investment accessibility for Canadian businesses.

I hope my socialist friends down the way were listening to that.

Canada is rich in natural resources, and it needs to ensure they are developed not only in a way that is environmentally sustainable, but also in a way that benefits Canadians, first and foremost.

That is why, despite years of Conservative inaction, we in the Liberal Party will continue to press the government to keep the promise made in 2010 by the Prime Minister to clearly define the net benefit test in the Investment Canada Act and to strengthen its foreign investment policy.

The Liberal Party believes that Canadians should know exactly what is on the table, so they can judge whether this FIPA or other deals involving foreign investment are good deals for Canada. In our view this deal with China should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

My hon. friends in the NDP earlier today refused to allow an amendment to their motion, but they are entitled to a second chance. I propose to move that the motion be amended by replacing all of the words after “China that” with the following: “prior to any decision on the ratification of the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, the said agreement should be referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade to conduct hearings across Canada and report back its findings and any recommendations to amend the agreement to the House”.

I ask for my hon. NDP colleague to consent to this amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may only be moved with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, which in this case is the official opposition. Does the House give its unanimous consent to propose and move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the intervention by my colleague from Halifax West. He has been around this place a few years and makes an important contribution on behalf of Nova Scotians.

I want to assure the member and his colleagues that the motion in no way precludes any public meetings or any opportunities through committee to engage in discussions with Canadians. In fact, we have been arguing for that from the beginning. We moved a motion at committee to make sure this agreement comes to committee for study but that has not happened. Play their games as they will, the point is that the motion is meant to make a clear indication to the government that we will not agree to FIPA the way it is and that we need to examine it much more closely.

Perhaps that member with his experience and knowledge could explain to us why it is that the government has been so hesitant to have any public discussions about the bill. The government has had since November to enact this agreement, but it has failed to do so. Canadians would be curious to know whether or not the government is hesitating because it is concerned there is fairly significant weakness.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand we have just heard a refusal to allow us to move an amendment that would provide for public hearings across the country, and on the other hand my colleague has just said how much his party is in favour of having public hearings across the country. The member may not see a contradiction in that, but I do. However, each of us can draw our own conclusions. I will let the public draw its own conclusions.

As to why the government would not want to have hearings on this, that is the point I was making largely in my speech. I find it baffling that the government would not want to have hearings, even a debate here in the House of Commons on this topic. The government's answer in the House of Commons was that we could have done it on one of our opposition days. It is the government that brought this treaty forward. It is the government's responsibility to bring these things before Canadians and have them examined and allow for debate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for bringing forward yet again a very important amendment. What it would have done is allow Canadians from across the land, first nations and others, to be able to add to the debate before it could actually pass.

I do not understand why the NDP members oppose it. It makes no sense whatsoever. Some say that they are not fit to govern. I would suggest that this is a classic example as to why they are not fit to govern. They really do not understand why it is important to be able to do the right thing on important issues.

My question to the member is does he believe--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard for me to hear myself. The member is a little upset. I can appreciate that.

The question is very simple. Does he believe that maybe it is because the NDP has a predisposition to dislike free trade agreements of any sort?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks the question: What is behind this? Is it the ideology of the party? Is it the idea that it does not want to have foreign investment and that it wants maximum government intervention so that people cannot trade freely? That is what we are talking about here. It is very much a socialist point of view.

We can erase the word from the constitution, but apparently it takes much longer to erase the concepts behind these things and the underlying thinking about trade, what actually creates jobs and produces the kinds of benefits that give people a good standard of living and good lives.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for bothering my colleague. Now, I would like to show Canadians just how hypocritical the Liberals are and how they are playing politics at Canadians' expense.

Today, the Liberals should not be going after the NDP; rather, they should be going after the Conservatives, who refuse to listen to first nations and Canadians. I would like to say this to my Liberal colleagues: Shame on you guys for attacking the official opposition when we are trying to defend Canadians. You should attack the government for not listening to Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would like to remind hon. members to direct their comments and questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Halifax West.