Debates of April 18th, 2013

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

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our job is to table the treaty in this place and it is the opposition's job to bring it forward for debate. I have been counting and it has been 17 days. This is 17th on the opposition's list of priorities.

My colleague made a statement about the trade deficit. Everybody recognizes that there is a trade deficit. We have 72 countries on a preferential tariff list. We have decided to take away that preferential tariff list because those countries are no longer emerging economies; they are mature economies. The official opposition does not want to do that, and that would lead to a trade deficit.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh at some of the responses from the parliamentary secretary. He did say that these were difficult times. What he failed to add was that these times were all the more difficult as a result of the government's actions.

The international trade critic for the NDP mentioned some trade facts and I would like to add to them. There was a surplus when the Conservatives came to power and now there is a serious trade deficit, the first trade deficit in 30 years. Canada has been in a trade deficit 10 months out of the last 12 months. The Conservatives like to talk about the number of agreements they have signed, but they never want to talk about results. Why? Because the results are absolutely terrible.

The CETA agreement was supposed to be agreed upon and signed over a year ago. It has now been moved to the summer. We are playing second fiddle to the United States negotiations and that puts us in a lose-lose position. We are losing a billion dollar market on pork and hogs as a result of the government's FTA with South Korea. The U.S. secretary of agriculture is bragging to the U.S. beef industry about stealing the beef market from Canadians in South Korea. Those are the results we are seeing.

Will the parliamentary secretary answer my question directly? Who is responsible for liabilities as a result of a provincial government decision under the FIPA that may affect a Chinese company investing in this country that feels it has been wronged and sues in court? Who accepts liability for that? I believe if the member answers honestly, he will say that federal taxpayers do.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member asked the question if he wants to answer it himself.

The first part of the member's diatribe was on the trade deficit. Let us just look at this for a moment.

Canada's trade deficits over the past few years were the result of a relatively weak global economy. Maybe the hon. member is an isolationist and thinks that we exist without the rest of the world and that we do not build things and make products with other countries, but the reality is that we do.

We have a weak global economy and a strong Canadian economy compared to all of our trading partners. The recession hit the United States, which is the main source of our trade surplus, and the rest of the world harder than Canada therefore weakening the demand for Canadian exports to the rest of the world but leaving Canadian demand for imports largely unaffected due to our strong domestic economy.

I would ask the member the same question I asked the official opposition. Why does he support reducing tariffs for Chinese investors and Chinese companies on products coming into Canada, putting us at a disadvantage?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate, not just in the House but for the last number of months with a great deal of interest and puzzlement.

Since 2006, 14 foreign promotion and protection agreements have been concluded or brought into force by this government. Between 1990 and 2006, some 10 foreign promotion and protection agreements were brought into force. In other words, since 1990, some 24 FIPA agreements have been concluded or brought into force. The Canada-China FIPA agreement is similar to those 24 other FIPA agreements negotiated since 1990. It contains the same or similar core standard obligations as in these 24 other agreements. It contains rights and obligations that apply equally to both Canada and China.

In light of these facts, my question is this. Why is this FIPA such a concern? If this FIPA is similar to the other 24 FIPAs, what is motivating all the concern about this Canada-China foreign promotion and protection agreement? Is this a form of dog whistle politics that is going on here? What is motivating all the concern about this agreement in light of the fact that it is so similar to the other 24 agreements?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say it is as simple as politics. I do not want to say that it is opposition for the sake of opposition. However, I think the public can draw its own conclusions.

The hon. member is absolutely right in that there have been a number of FIPAs signed since 1990 and 11 since we formed government in 2006. There have been 17 opportunities with opposition days by the official opposition alone, not including the Liberal Party, to debate this in the House. Therefore, it is 17th on the NDP's list of priorities but suddenly it is a priority today.

These FIPAs are all very similar. They all offer the same basic end game, which is protection for Canadian investors in China and protection for Chinese investors in Canada. There is nothing untoward about that. There is no ability for the Chinese to take over the Canadian economy. There is no ability for them to destroy the environment. All of this really is fearmongering and goes back to the basic anti-trade roots of the official opposition.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by stating what the parliamentary secretary did not say in response to that question. Yes, the FIPA with China and Canada is similar, but it is certainly not the same.

We are dealing with what is now or will be the biggest economy in the world, and we are also dealing with state-owned enterprises. There is a lot of difference in terms of the China agreement, and some other countries have recognized that and have put in specific safeguards in their own country's interests on SOEs. They have done it in a way to protect their own interests and still have a foreign investment protection agreement. That should be added to the parliamentary secretary's answer.

I am pleased to speak to the motion, but I want to point out a few facts as I begin. What the motion really shows in this place is the extreme position of both the Conservative government and the NDP opposition on major issues that affect Canadians.

On the one hand we have the Conservative government that will sign any deal just to get a deal, just to get the number. It will sign basically anything, regardless of the long-term consequences on Canadians.

On the other hand, we have the NDP, which seems to oppose any trade or investment treaty, and leaves us with the impression that the NDP position is anti-trade in its approach to the economy. That kind of thinking belongs in the early 20th century, not today.

We have the two extremes. What the Liberal Party wants to do is find the balance. That is why, as I said earlier in a question, we will not be voting for the NDP motion because we really think what we should be doing is holding the proper hearings. We cannot just throw out an investment treaty that has some flaws in it. We need to fix the flaws. That is really what we need to be doing.

In order to do that, and the parliamentary secretary can say all he likes about the fact that there were seven opposition days and more—

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Seventeen.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

—seventeen, but the government has a responsibility. All parliamentarians have a responsibility to come up with the best agreement for Canada that we can come up with.

The problem with the government is that it either denies debate or limits debate, so that the proper hearings cannot be held across the country, and in this case globally, I would submit, to find the best solution for Canadians on an investment treaty with China, to fix those flaws.

That is where we want to be. We want to ensure the facts are laid out, both the good points and the bad points, so that we can fix the flaws in this particular agreement to ensure that it is best for Canada.

The facts are these: Foreign investment protection agreements are important for Canadians investing abroad, as well as businesses here at home. While the Canada-China FIPA contains several flaws that raise serious concerns, completely abandoning the treaty is not the answer to assist Canadians and Canadian businesses in dealing with investments and trade issues with China, which is a major player in the world.

Second, a better opposition day motion would have toned down the anti-foreign investment and trade rhetoric by highlighting the areas that require improvement, and I hope I can do that through the course of my remarks.

There is no question that the Canada-China foreign investment protection agreement needs to be improved, but not completely discarded.

The Liberal Party has raised concerns about provisions in the Canada-China investment agreement, particularly on issues of transparency during arbitration, termination of the agreement and the length of time the agreement is in force. Liberals have consistently called for a public debate on the issue, not on a motion such as this but a real debate where the treaty is actually laid out. I would submit that beyond that, we need to be bringing in witnesses, going to see businesses, some in favour and some opposed, to see the implications from their perspectives.

Unfortunately, the government has failed to take responsibility for this treaty and has blocked discussion on it, creating a vacuum that has been filled with misinformation and fearmongering. That really concerns me because there are two major extremes, and that is causing a lot of dissension toward the agreement. Indeed, if the government had the will, the FIPA could be fixed.

It is important to keep in mind that the only briefing ever provided to the Canadian public and Parliament came about as a result of a motion presented to the international trade committee, at which government officials were permitted to speak for a single hour. The minister never went before committee on this issue. By way of a motion that the government members were too embarrassed to defeat, officials were before the committee for one single hour. Does anyone think that on an investment treaty this broad that is enough time to debate the issues and get some answers? I certainly think not.

From what we know, the key issues surrounding the Canada-China FIPA are these: one, transparency in terms of public awareness of disputes; two, federal liabilities for provincial decisions based on the Constitution; three, restrictions on investment and joint ventures in China, restrictions on what industries Canadians can invest in in China vis-à-vis what China investment companies and state-owned enterprises are allowed to invest in in this country; four, security concerns raised by both CSIS and United States security agencies; five, energy investments such as CNOOC and national treatment on further investments. Those are the five key areas about which there are concerns. To a great extent, if the government had the will to allow itself to debate the issue, many of those key issues could be solved and we could have an investment treaty that in fact works. Let us not just throw it out, but let us also not just do as the government does and sign it because it is under a bit of pressure.

Let me come back to each of the issues. On the transparency issue, in terms of disputes to be resolved through arbitration, officials told the committee the following:

...it is Canada's long-standing policy to permit public access to such proceedings. Canada's FIPA with China...will allow Canada to make all documents submitted to an arbitral tribunal available...subject to the protection of confidential business information.

Later in the same testimony, we found out Canada has little to do with it. In response to the question that stated that FIPA means that “China...does not have to have public hearings and does not have to disclose documents if they don't want to”, the response from officials was, yes, that was correct.

On the transparency issue, I am saying that officials, in that single hour of testimony we had from them in questions, admitted that there is an entirely different situation related to transparency on disputes that has to occur in this country versus the transparency that has to occur for Canadian investors having a dispute on the China side of the equation.

When asked if the government has done an economic impact assessment of the agreement, something that has been done for all the FTAs, which has been used as the basis of defending them, officials confirmed that no such analysis was undertaken or apparently attempted. That is a serious issue, when we have the Government of Canada undertaking a major international agreement, which any of us who have read the document and the timeframes know is basically locked in for 31 years, and the government has not done a cost-benefit analysis. That is just about unbelievable, but in fact it is true.

The second major concern that I raise was a termination clause. In other FIPAs, there is usually an easy mechanism to end the agreement early if the agreement does not end up providing Canadians the protection it is supposed to. This agreement remains in force indefinitely, and the exit mechanisms generally consist of a six-month or one-year notice and then the exiting investments remain in force for a period of a certain number of years that would be spelled out.

For example, under NAFTA, which is a major agreement, a party may withdraw six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other parties. If a party withdraws, the agreement shall remain in force for the remaining parties. In our agreement with Lebanon, there is a one-year notice for termination, and then existing investments remain in force for some 20 years. In Jordan, it is the same thing; there is a one-year notice of termination, but the existing investments would remain in force for 15 years. In Argentina, it is much the same.

However, and this is the point I raised earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that this FIPA with China is the same, but it is not the same in many respects. It is similar, but with many different qualifiers around it. With China, this agreement is not indefinite until termination notice. In other words, we are locked in for an initial period of 15 years, which is unprecedented in terms of these agreements. Then it can be terminated on one year's notice and existing investments remain in force for another period of 15 years. Hence, that is where we get the 31-year agreement point that many people keep citing. This is a departure and locks us into the agreement, regardless of whether it ends up providing Canadians the protection it is supposed to.

The third point of concern is federal liability for provincial decisions and the constitutional impact. At the international trade committee on October 18, 2012, in response to the direct question, “Would this FIPA subject provinces to claims for damages as a result of this legislation if a Chinese investor believed that provincial actions had violated this deal?” officials responded, “No, it doesn't subject provinces to any claims. The federal government is responsible. The federal government would be accepting all obligations”.

That is something we seriously have to consider. If a province makes a decision, and a Chinese business is upset because it believes that it has future lost profits as a result, and it wins the case, the federal government is responsible for all those obligations. The federal taxpayer could end up having to pay for those obligations.

That is key. That is not different from some of the other trade agreements. I recognize that. However, we should go in with eyes wide open and look at whether there is any way of limiting that liability to the federal taxpayer as a result of provincial decisions, for whatever reason they are made.

The fourth area is restrictions on investment in China and on joint ventures.

During the briefing by officials at the international trade committee, the following was stated:

Some sectors are completely off limits to foreign investment, such as mining of certain minerals. In other sectors, foreign investments are restricted or “encouraged”, meaning that they are subject to foreign equity caps or requirements for Chinese control or joint venture arrangements.

The official went on to state that this agreement:

will support Canadian businesses' efforts to explore the growing investment opportunities in the world's second-largest economy across a range of key sectors, including financial services, natural resources, transportation, biotech, education, information technology, and manufacturing.

Further to this point concerning restrictions with China, and to the point the Prime Minister raised in the House on October 23, 2012, regarding reciprocity, the following should be noted from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report of 2012, which states:

The Chinese government identifies “oil and petrochemicals” as one of seven strategic industries for which the state must maintain “absolute control through dominant state-owned enterprises.”

As such, foreign companies are not permitted to participate in China's domestic strategic industries, except through joint ventures.

There we have it. There are different rules for our investments in China versus its investments here. We need to be looking out for those pitfalls in terms of this particular agreement.

The point is that state-owned enterprises in China are designed in such a way as to enhance total economic endeavours and the foreign, political and trade policies of China. We need to recognize that up front. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but we need to go in with eyes wide open and ensure that we protect ourselves from any problems that may occur as a result of that strategy.

I would like to move that the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the words “China that” with the following: prior to any decision and 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the spirit behind my hon. colleague's amendment, we will not consent to that amendment. My hon. colleague knows that the New Democrats put forth a motion to have this matter brought before the Standing Committee on International Trade. It was rejected by the government, so we know already that it is not going to happen.

We need to take action on this FIPA now, and we may as well get to the real action, which is that this FIPA in its present form should not be ratified. The New Democrats are going to press the government to make that responsible move.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Obviously there is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member for Malpeque and the New Democrats have been focusing on the government's disastrous trade record for the last six years. The parliamentary secretary was just attempting, very weakly, to defend what is an abysmal trade deficit. We went from a $17 billion surplus when the Conservatives came to office in 2006 to what is now a $67 billion deficit. He attempted to brush that off by saying that we've had a global recession, that commodity prices are low and that other countries have suffered.

We did a study two weeks ago that compared Canada's current trade account record with 17 other countries around this world: the United States, Japan, Germany, Spain, Colombia, Chile, Peru. They are all countries that have been operating in the same global environment, have gone through the same global recession and have to deal with the same commodity prices and currency fluctuations. What did we find? Eight countries have been running trade surpluses at the same time that the Conservatives have been in power. Five of those countries have trade deficits, but they are improving, and five countries have trade deficits, and they are deteriorating. Guess who is in the 18th position, the last place out of 18 countries? It is Canada under the Conservative government. It is no excuse to say that this massive current account deficit is someone else's fault. It is the Conservatives' fault.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he would like to comment on those numbers as opposed to the spin we hear from the government?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on those numbers, but I am disappointed that the NDP would not support the amendment to basically send this to the trade committee and do hearings across the country. Yes, it was rejected at the trade committee, clearly on direction from the government, but I thought that maybe in this place, where there are a number of backbenchers now starting to speak out and rally against the tight control by the Prime Minister's Office, that they might have the backbone to stand and say that we should do our jobs as parliamentarians and hold the proper hearings on issues such as this.

Be it as it may, that is the decision taken by the NDP members, and I do not understand where they are coming from.

On the numbers that the trade critic for the NDP talked about, he is absolutely right. We are in 18th position among those countries. For the first time in 30 years, we have an annual trade deficit. Merchandise trade is showing problems all the time. the Canadian government has failed to implement an FTA with South Korea. As a result, in that market now, we are losing a billion dollar market for beef and hogs. The United States is displacing us in that particular market. The CETA has been now moved back to summer. We are playing second fiddle to the United States there.

Conservatives may talk numbers in terms of trade agreements, but the results of the government in terms of trade is 18th worst, and it seems to be getting worse all the time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC recently lamented that our Conservative government is focused only on the economy, and for once, the state broadcaster had it right.

Growing the economy means growing jobs. Canadian workers produce and provide more services than Canadian citizens can consume, so it is natural that we look to other markets. China has a high population and is ready to buy Canadian. In order to do so, we have to invest there. Some of that is investing in different companies and buying companies, but they need the protection we afford investors in Canada. They need to know that their assets are not going to be confiscated by the government.

All we hear from the member opposite's leader is whining about his little red wagon. Why is it that the members opposite, including the other opposition, are more concerned about jobs in China than they are about jobs in Canada?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think the questioner started off talking about the CBC, saying that the poor government was solely focused on the economy. My only hope would be that it does not focus on much else, because when it is has focused on the economy, it has become a disaster.

The Minister of Finance has not hit a target yet. The government started off with a surplus, and it now has a deficit. We are finding out more and more about the budget. As our leader said the other day on the budget, the increasing of tariffs on something like 1300 items is going to cost middle-class Canadians more.

Maybe the member who raised the question is not concerned about the families that buy those little red wagons for their children, but it is going to cost them more. Maybe the member is not concerned about the people who go out and buy bicycles that are going to cost them more.

If the member would just admit it, she would stand up here and say that yes, the government has been misinforming Canadians all along. It is, in fact, raising taxes in a number of areas, and its policies are damaging the ability of middle-class people to make a decent living in this country.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the critic for heritage, I would like to point out that the CBC is our public broadcaster. It is not our state broadcaster, as some people like to describe it.

I would like to ask my colleague about the situation of this agreement and particularly the others. When it comes to CETA and agreements such as this, they are always looked upon in a population of 35 million. We are looking at, in many cases, bilateral agreements. In many of these markets or countries we have bilateral agreements with, such as the European Union, and in negotiations with China and certainly Mexico and the United States, they are always seen as stepping stones to bigger fish to fry, as it were, whether it be with the European Union or, eventually, the United States of America.

My hon. colleague pointed out, quite rightly, that we are now playing second fiddle. In many cases, we are. However, we have to maintain that strong trade relationship so that we are not playing second fiddle.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Countries initially negotiate with Canada rather than with the United States. If they get an agreement with Canada, they then move on to the U.S., which has an economy 10 times bigger than ours.

At one point in time we heard that the Canada-Europe trade agreement was on the Prime Minister's desk for signature. We know that there are three problem areas, such as the procurement of pharmaceutical drug costs and issues related to supply management. However, the European Commissioner has basically now told Canada that unless it settles for less than what it wants, Europe will move on to the United States. In fact, the U.S. agreement is proceeding. That is why we are now playing second fiddle to the United States. The Europeans are now emphasizing that particular negotiation. I would suggest that all we will end up with in Canada right now is a bad agreement. That is the result of the government not doing its job aggressively enough when it had the opportunity.

I might point out, as well, as I did not have enough time in my remarks, that the United States is very concerned about the Chinese agreement and how the Chinese government guides foreign direct investments to those sectors it sees as strategic. Canada has to recognize that concern and ensure that we protect those industries in Canada and ensure that they benefit Canadians rather than become subservient to Chinese needs.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in starting I would like to say that I was very disappointed, having been in this House now for nine years, to see the Liberal Party yet again siding with the Conservatives.

I have been in Parliament nine years, and hundreds of times, when push comes to shove, when Canadians' interests are at stake, the so-called new Liberal Party seems to be exactly like the old Liberal Party, always siding with the Conservatives, always siding with the Prime Minister.

I would just like to share my disappointment, because I know that this is an important debate. The member for Vancouver Kingsway, in his very eloquent speech, spoke of thousands of emails flooding in from across this country on this important debate. We have received tens of thousands of emails, letters, cards, and phone calls from Canadians who are very concerned about the Canada-China FIPA and its implications for Canada.

I would like to say at the outset that on this side of the House we are resolute fair traders. The NDP has always stood for fair trade, that means a rules-based system that is balanced and well-negotiated and serves both parties.

In the NDP caucus of 100 strong members, we have many members of Parliament who have actually worked as negotiators in the past. They have represented the interests of their side in negotiations. What we have seen before in the Liberal government and most certainly now under the Conservative government is governments that seem incapable of negotiating strongly for Canada's interests.

I would just like to say on behalf of the NDP caucus that when we come to power in 2015, Canada's interests will finally be effectively protected. Canadians can know for sure that we will have tough Canadian negotiators who will always stand for Canada first and will always be capable of negotiating fair trade agreements.

I just want to mention in starting off that I will be sharing my time with the very eloquent member for Nanaimo—Cowichan who has just reminded me of that point. I look forward to her speech. She will be speaking particularly to the consultation that was not done on the Canada-China FIPA, and will also be referencing the lawsuits that are starting to emerge because of this badly botched negotiation.

Let us start with the Conservative approach to trade. Let us start with the record. The member for Vancouver Kingsway very eloquently set it out. We have the worst trade deficit in our nation's history, and this is after seven years of Conservative government. So badly have they botched negotiations, so badly have they been in terms of defending Canada's interests, that the Conservatives have taken Canada into the worst trade deficit in our history.

This is something the Conservatives were trying to explain, badly, quite ineptly, just a few minutes ago, that somehow that was due to international conditions, that somehow it was somebody else's fault. It is the worst government in Canadian history for trade deficits, but it is “somebody else's fault”. We see this systematically. The Conservatives are always trying to point the finger at somebody else. The member for Vancouver Kingsway replied that out of 18 countries, in terms of the trade deficit, in terms of our chief industrial partners worldwide, Canada is 18th out of 18 among those countries. It is the worst trade deficit because of Conservative incompetence.

We have seen this firsthand, time after time since the Conservatives came to power. We have seen half a million manufacturing and value-added jobs evaporate because of Conservative incompetence. We have the worst trade deficit in our history.

If we look at the inability of the Conservatives to negotiate even one fair trade agreement, then every time we bring fair trade proposals forward, Conservatives and even the Liberals always vote against them. They have never supported a fair trade agreement or anything that has been brought forward that even smells of fair trade on the floor of the House of Commons, certainly since I have been here.

When we look at the components of what the Conservatives have actually negotiated, we see how badly they have defended Canada's interests.

I will give one example, because it strikes home in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. It shows the impacts of these badly botched agreements the Conservatives throw onto the floor of the House of Commons and then try to cover up. Of course, there is never any debate because they are so reprehensible in how badly they negotiate these agreements that they never want them to be examined in committee. They never want them debated on the floor of the House of Commons because they are all so bad.

I will give one example: the softwood lumber agreement. In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, in the weeks following the ramming through of that agreement on the floor of the House of Commons, Conservatives and Liberals concocted together, and another party that used to exist and that is not so present today, the Bloc Québécois, conspired, on behalf of Canadians, to push it through. In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, 2,000 families lost their breadwinner. Within a matter of weeks, we saw three softwood plants go down, one, two, three: Canfor, Interfor, Western Forest Products. Those workers were sold out by Conservatives and their partner, the Liberal Party, resulting in those workers losing their jobs and those families losing a breadwinner.

We said at the time, on the floor of the House of Commons, that there would be dire consequences if we rammed this through. Most of the Conservatives did not even bother to read the agreement. They just voted blindly because the Prime Minister told them to. Many of the 60,000 jobs that were lost were lost in Conservative ridings. The Conservatives said, “We don't care about those workers. We don't care about those jobs. We don't care about those businesses.”

Actions have consequences. That is why the member for Vancouver Kingsway is bringing forward the motion today. Having read the Canada-China FIPA and understanding the consequences, we are saying we need to take a halt on this, not ram it through, not ratify it, because the consequences to Canadian communities and the consequences to Canadians would be serious.

We have a government that seems intent on a one-dimensional economy. It wants to ship raw logs, raw minerals, raw bitumen out of this country. That is all it wants to do. It seems to think that there would be some economic benefit to doing that. I think the figures prove the contrary. Half a million manufacturing and value-added jobs were lost. We have the largest trade deficit in our nation's history. We have the worst trade economic performance in our nation's history. Those facts basically speak for themselves. What, then, would happen if we compounded that by ratifying a Canada-China FIPA?

Here is the situation. It was badly botched. The member for Vancouver Kingsway was very eloquent about that, going over step by step, section by section, how badly botched the negotiations were.

It would permanently keep in place all of the discriminatory measures taken by the Chinese state government, but it would open up Canada and basically ensure that the measures that we might normally take to protect our environment, to ensure that there is economic development, even value-added economic development, could be contested and that Chinese state companies that then choose to move forward and seek compensation could seek compensation from Canadian taxpayers.

Who would negotiate an agreement that would ensure that discriminatory measures could be taken by one party but not by another? And who would then say, “We're going to put this into place and ratify it for three decades”?

We have our answer. It does not seem logical. It does not seem consistent with what the Conservative Party ran on. Yet it is the current Conservative government that wants to put into place this FIPA and ensure, for all time, that those discriminatory measures could be taken by the Chinese state government but that Canadian measures that we put in place to protect our environment, our health and safety, our economy, could not be taken.

On this side of the House, we stand with the Canadians who are writing to us throughout this debate, the tens of thousands of Canadians who have expressed valid concerns about how badly this negotiation was botched.

The New Democratic Party caucus stands with Canadians on this issue. That is why we encourage the debate. We invite members who have actually read the agreement to vote with us to send a clear direction to the government that the agreement should not be ratified because it is not in Canada's interests.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's usual fear-mongering nonsense about anti-trade policies. The member says he has been here for eight years. Indeed, I have been here for 14 years. When he used to sit in the other chair over there, every time he spoke, and we can take it from Hansard, there was absolutely no question in our minds that he was anti-free trade.

This nonsense that he is espousing about fair trade is nothing but a cover-up for the anti-trade stand he has taken year after year. There is nothing new in what he is talking about today, except now it is clear that he is directing his anger against China. China is the second-largest growing economy in the world. It would help Canadian businesses. Thousands and thousands of Canadian businesses are in China, so I hear.

This is a very good agreement that would help Canadians find jobs. It would help the Canadian economy move forward.

The member stood up and talked about 10,000 Canadians writing to him. Maybe we should tell him that 10,000 Canadians do not write to us, but they go to work. They are working. They are finding jobs.

His party has taken socialism out of its constitution, but socialism exists in his heart and his brain and he is now talking all this socialist nonsense that is on his free trade agenda.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what the member was talking about. It just seemed to be a diatribe. He did say fair trade is rubbish. A number of countries around the world, including European Union countries, Australia, and even the United States, that have already incorporated components of fair trade into their trade template would disagree with the member.

The reality is, Canada actually has the most outdated trade template among all industrialized countries. Under the Conservative government, the “Flintstonian” approach to trade policy, which it carries so proudly, has the most outdated tools, trade negotiating, and trade template of any industrialized country.

The member says fair trade is rubbish. Most Canadians actually believe in fair trade and most of the prosperous industrialized countries around the world are pushing a fair trade agenda.

However, there is another issue I wanted to raise while I have the floor. The member is from Calgary. I have been to Calgary about half a dozen times over the past few months talking about the CNOOC takeover of Nexen. I talked to Calgary citizens. They are concerned about the impacts of simply rubber-stamping the CNOOC takeover of Nexen, as the Conservative government did. Nexen plays an important role in the Calgary economy, yet the member and the Conservative government did not stand up for Calgary's interest. It is a shame that Conservatives would not stand up for Calgary when they represent it in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, t is good to acknowledge there is a difference between the political entities here. We have the Liberal Party, which supports freer trade, where it is practical and where it creates jobs for Canadians.

It is interesting when we contrast the China deal. The Prime Minister goes to China and brings back a couple of panda bears. Under the Chrétien regime, we had the prime minister come back with hundreds of millions in investment.

It is indeed of great concern to Canadians that we have a huge trade deficit. It is not only going out and trying to write up these agreements, there is also an important responsibility for government to bring business to Canada. Would my New Democrat friend comment on the importance of that issue?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, with a short answer, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to have a short answer.

That is a very good question from my colleague. We have been saying all along that we need to modernize the trade template and that we need a fair trade template. That is what the NDP has been promoting.

We need much more effective negotiations. Conservatives are awful negotiators, the worst negotiators ever, and even worse than the Liberals, which is saying a lot.

Most importantly, in terms of stimulating our export sales, particularly value-added exports, I have talked to Canadian trade commissioners across the world who do not even have the money to buy a cup of coffee for a potential client of Canadian goods and services. That is how this so-called “pro-trade” government has starved the resources that allow for that actual export breakthrough on value-added products.

Conservatives are awful at trade. Case closed. That is our conclusion.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for sharing his time with me.

I am rising to speak on the NDP motion calling on the government not to ratify the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. I know the member for Vancouver Kingsway has very ably covered a number of areas of concern. I am going to focus on one particular area.

One of the big challenges with this agreement is that it does not acknowledge the Crown's constitutional obligations to first nations. This is outlined in section 35 of the Constitution, which states that the government has a legal obligation to consult aboriginal peoples before undertaking measures that impact on their rights. Of course, this right has been reaffirmed in any number of court decisions.

I only have 10 minutes, so I am going to try to focus on a couple of key arguments. The Assembly of First Nations has conducted a very preliminary analysis on the impacts of this agreement. It is a draft and much more work needs to be done, but part of its analysis includes the statement that the government has a duty to consult on FIPA and, to its knowledge, has not consulted with first nations. It went on to point out that the Hupacasath First Nation is currently challenging FIPA in court, mainly on this basis. I want to turn for a moment to this challenge.

Hupacasath filed a notice of application against Canada in early January. One of the councillors, Brenda Sayers, stated, “This deal will pave the way for a massive natural resource buyout and allow foreign corporations to sue the Canadian government in secret tribunals, restricting Canadians from making democratic decisions about our economy, environment and energy.”

Steven Tatoosh, the chief councillor, says, “We will argue that the Government of Canada breached its fiduciary duty to consult First Nations on our respective constitutionally enshrined and judicially recognized aboriginal title, rights and treaty rights.”

There are many organizations that are supporting this initiative. I have a quote from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who said, “To recklessly disregard our title, rights and treaty rights is an outrage. Our inherent rights are our fundamental human rights. Canada repeatedly violates our human rights when our inherent rights are totally ignored in agreements such as the Canada-China FIPA.”

Councillor Brenda Sayers went on to say that the court action is intended to put the brakes on the FIPA process until all Canadians have had a chance to study the far-reaching and potentially devastating implications of the agreement.

One of the glaring threats in this agreement is around environmental protection. Sayers pointed out that under a FIPA, the foreign investor is subject to all the environmental regulations of the host country, but only as those regulations were in place at the effective date of the agreement.

Ms. Sayers further stated, “This is not just a First Nations battle. This is a battle for the rights of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. Both of our constitutional rights are being violated. There are a lot of common threads behind our two communities: the protection of our water, the protection of natural resources and our environment, the protection of our future. Canadians need to realize this is a fight for Canadians as a whole.”

Because I have limited time, I cannot read all of the letters I have received into the record. I have a letter from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, a presentation from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, a detailed brief from the First Nations Summit, a brief from The Council of Canadians with regard to how this agreement threatens indigenous rights, and a brief from the Coastal First Nations Great Bear initiative. There are many more. Those are the ones I was able to grab as I left my office.

I want to return to the Assembly of First Nations' preliminary analysis. It has identified the following:

Several modern treaties contain an express obligation to consult prior to the adoption of new International Legal Obligations (ILOs) which could affect rights under the treaties. We believe that the government is very likely under a duty to consult even those First Nations who do not hold modern treaties, based on the unilateral nature of the conduct of foreign relations and the potential for new [international legal obligations] to impact the exercise of existing or claimed [first nation] rights.

There are numerous in this draft analysis, and I think it would be incumbent upon the government to take a look at the concerns being raised that impact not only first nations, both treaty, non-treaty and self-governing, but also non-indigenous Canadians.

Further on in the brief, it says:

The potential for FN rights claims to be dealt with in investor state arbitrations is especially problematic for modern treaty holders. FNs would have, at best, intervenor status in such arbitrations. Past practice of international investor-state tribunals suggests that the ability to raise FN rights issues or human rights issues would be substantially impaired in such forums. The problem arises because some modern treaties contain language which suggests the exercise of some rights under the Agreements would need to be modified if those exercises conflicted with an ILO (hence, the reason for the consultation clauses). If an investor-state tribunal holds that a particular treaty right is effectively an expropriation, and hence contrary to the ILO of Canada in the FIPA to prevent such expropriations, then it means that future exercises of that right may need to be modified. This could arise with respect to self-government exercises of authority which are deemed expropriatory, and likely harvesting activities.

Further on it cites a claim under NAFTA, and it says:

To give you an idea of the kinds of cases which attract investor state claims, consider the Glamis case under NAFTA. There, a Canadian mining company was subjected to a mining reclamation regulation enacted, in part, to preserve a sacred site of the Quechan Nation. Glamis claimed this environmental regulation (enacted to preserve the Quechan Nation's connection and access to its sacred sites) was expropriatory.

When we are dealing with first nations sacred sites, cultural sites or traditional sites, mechanisms need to be in place in order to protect them and in order to consult appropriately with first nations.

Later on, the brief states:

Quechan intervened, but was unable to participate meaningfully in the case. Indeed, it had to rely on the US DOJ to defend the measures (which, incidentally were promulgated by the state of California). This should concern FNs because unlike the US DOJ, which occasionally acts on behalf of tribal rights as part of its trust responsibility, DOJ Canada typically is adversarial to FN interests.

We have seen that in any number of cases. We see the number of times that first nations have been forced to the courts to defend their rights, with the Department of Justice intervening on behalf of the government to prevent first nations from moving forward. It is very worrisome that we do not have these kinds of protections in Canada.

I want to turn briefly to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, because this should be a fundamental underpinning for any kind of action that the government is going to take in the context of infringing on first nations rights. Article 19 indicates:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

It is clear from the very brief overview I was able to present that there are grave concerns around the great potential this agreement has to infringe on inherent rights.

One of the things that often comes up in the context of talking about consultation is not only the duty to consult but the duty to accommodate. There is certainly no mention in this agreement either around the duty to consult or the duty to accommodate, so it is important that the Conservative government pull back from this agreement and undertake its constitutional responsibilities under section 35 to conduct those consultations to ensure that first nations treaty rights and inherent rights will not be abrogated in this context.

I am hopeful, given the very reasoned and rational presentations that are being made in the House of Commons, that the Conservatives will reconsider their position on this matter.

I did not have time to talk about the hundreds of emails and letters I am getting in my own riding expressing grave concerns about this agreement. People are very concerned about how it is going to impact on the environment and on our waters. People really want an opportunity to have their say on this agreement.

In the absence of the government undertaking any meaningful consultation with indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, I encourage people to write directly to the Prime Minister to ask him to back down on this agreement.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I was following the hon. member's debate, and the question I have is with respect to the FIPA and first nations being before the courts.

The hon. member was speculating that levels of government somehow do not have the ability to regulate in their own right. The hon. member knows that is incorrect. There is nothing in this treaty that would negate treaty rights or aboriginal rights or municipal rights or provincial rights.

I would like the member to rise in the House and admit that those rights are protected and that there is nothing in this treaty that would prevent them from regulating in their own interests.