Debates of April 18th, 2013

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

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss four issues, that is, four specific problems raised by the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. I probably will not have enough time to address all four problems, but I should have enough time to discuss the three main ones.

I have already talked about the fact that the agreement uses different language in articles about most-favoured-nation treatment and national treatment, meaning that current Canadian investors in China, which is a very small number, will be protected. However, future investors will not be protected, which poses a serious problem.

The second point I want to discuss was also raised by my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway, the official opposition critic for international trade. It has to do with the fact that both countries can keep all existing measures that do not conform with trade liberalization. This measure can help them locally. For instance, in China, provisions currently exist, and China will have the right to keep them after the agreement is signed, that is, after it is ratified.

These provisions require Canadian businesses to hire local workers or to have a certain number of local administrators, for example. There has been a lot of liberalization in Canada over the past 30 years, and we have eliminated all the measures that were not consistent with the spirit of freer trade. If each country can retain measures that are not consistent, we are giving an unfair advantage to our Chinese trading partner. That is what explains the lack of reciprocity I referred to earlier in my speech.

The third thing I want to talk about is the mechanisms for resolving conflicts between investors and the state. We have a lot of concerns about such provisions, which are in this agreement and in the previous ones. Unlike the existing agreements or the existing provisions between investors and the state, what is in this proposed agreement with China goes much further. It would allow either of the countries to go ahead with conflict resolution before an administrative tribunal that is not a judicial tribunal. These are not people chosen by the state, but private arbitrators who could, at the request of one of the countries, deal with these issues behind closed doors if one of the countries deemed it was not of public concern. They do not have to justify why it is not of public concern; they simply have to say so.

These three specific reasons—the different treatment of current and future investors, the maintenance of non-conforming measures and a different mechanism for settling disputes between investors and the state—make us wonder where the comments that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Canadian Heritage made in question period are coming from. They are telling us that the sole reason for the agreement is to protect investors, and that the agreement gives Canadian investors in China the same rights as Chinese investors in Canada.

Yet, there are enormous differences in how the two are treated, partly because of the non-conforming measures, which are much more prevalent in China than they are here. Chinese investors in Canada benefit from the same protection as Canadians who are currently investing in China. In 2011, Canadian investors had about $5 billion worth of investments in China. These investments will be protected. In 2012, Chinese investors had $22 billion worth of investments in Canada—that is five times more. These investments will be protected.

We can therefore already see the imbalance. The fact that the agreement will not protect investors with regard to national treatment and the establishment or acquisition of various investments means that new markets will not be opened to Canada, as the Conservatives have promised. The Conservatives think that the opposition should vote in favour of this agreement because of these markets.

I am trying to understand the logic behind that argument. This agreement has been on the negotiating table for about 30 years or more. However, a solution has still not been found.

The softwood lumber agreement was signed quickly after the Conservative government came to power in 2006. This agreement was very bad for Canada, but producers accepted it because they were absolutely desperate.

At that time, the Conservative government wanted to win a quick victory. Right now, they want to achieve a victory, even if it harms Canada's interests and those of future investors in China. That is why we cannot support this agreement. We therefore support the motion moved by my colleague.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest, but I think he is missing the main intent and purpose of this agreement. I would like to give him an example. There is a very successful business person in British Columbia who has been doing business in British Columbia for many years and has just recently set up his business in China. He is very pleased to know that we have protection agreements in place.

Why does the hon. member believe that this businessman, who has taken the great initiative to move into China to try to create additional success, should not actually have the same protection? Why would the member deny that protection for Canadians who are looking to do business in China?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary quite understood what I was saying.

The investor she is referring to, the one who has just set up shop in China, will be protected under the agreement, because he set up his business in China before the agreement was ratified. However, if the same person wants to invest after the agreement is signed, he will not be protected in the same way he is right now.

Contrary to what the member is claiming, it is not true that the agreement will protect future investments and increase trade opportunities that will protect Canadian investors. That is simply not the case.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see that there is lots of interest in questions and comments, so during these five-minute periods for questions and comments I will be asking members to keep their interventions brief.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I posed this question earlier to one of the member's colleagues. I was emphasizing the importance of world trade. Canada is very much a trading nation. We need to have trade. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and provides the quality of life that we have.

The question I had posed was, does the NDP support trade deals? I have seen NDP members stand up and talk against trade deals. I have never witnessed them vote in favour of a trade agreement. Can the member indicate, in the last 30 years, when the NDP members stood in their place and actually voted in favour of a trade agreement?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the same myth is still floating around.

First, we have supported the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement in the past. Second, to give the hon. member a direct answer, we do in fact support trade agreements.

Having a document labelled “trade agreement” is not the same thing as examining the content of trade agreements. If some provisions in trade agreements are not in Canada's best interests and shortchange Canadians, it is our duty to stand up and point it out.

In this case, I have pointed out a number of issues, including the issue of whether both countries will be able to keep their non-conforming measures. China may keep a myriad of non-conforming measures, measures that Canada no longer has because they were eliminated. Actually, this lack of reciprocity is extremely problematic.

I would therefore ask the hon. member to review the trade agreements that he wants to support before he brings in his agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, over and over again today we have been told by Conservative members that this is a standard FIPA and that they are all the same.

This language is from the current investment treaty with Benin. It will take me a minute to read it:

....except in rare circumstances, such as when a measure or a series of measures is so severe in the light of its purpose that it cannot be reasonably viewed as having been adopted and applied in good faith, a....measure...designed...to protect...public welfare objectives, such as health, safety and the environment, does not constitute indirect expropriation.

That is not bad language. The language in the China investment treaty requires that a country like Canada prove that any measure is “necessary” to protect “human, animal or plant life or health”. We are way less protected under the Canada-China investment treaty than Benin is in dealing with Canada.

Does my friend have any comments?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct, and that is why I am perplexed by the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. This morning, in his first question to our critic, he said that this agreement is no different from previous foreign investment protection agreements. On the contrary, there are some very different and extremely worrisome provisions in this agreement.

Hypothetically, we may have to face a secret administrative tribunal at the request of one of the two partners. That measure does not currently exist in any treaty or accord. The protection given to current investors is different from that given to future investors—those who will invest after this treaty is ratified—and that is one element that differs from past measures. We do not agree with those measures.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

Our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Canada's prosperity is directly linked to reaching beyond our borders for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's trade and investment.

Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. It is even more important in the current global economic climate. Jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers and their families continue to be our focus.

Our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. Export-related industries represent one out of every five jobs in Canada and account for nearly two-thirds of our country's annual income. Our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard of living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by deepening and broadening our trade relationships.

No government in Canada's history has been more committed to helping create jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. Deepening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to these efforts. Whereas during their 13 years in government, the Liberals completed only three trade deals, in less than six years under this Prime Minister's leadership, Canada has become partner in nine new free trade agreements, with Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Peru, Honduras and the European Free Trade Association, which includes Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Sadly, the ideologically driven NDP has generally opposed these agreements.

Our government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness. Thanks to these actions and our government's free trade leadership, Canadian workers and businesses now have preferred access and a real competitive edge in more markets around the world than at any other time in our history.

However one cannot talk about dynamic and fast-growing markets without touching upon Canada's successes in promoting the interests of Canadian exporters in the Asia-Pacific.

In the past few years, our government has been aggressively expanding commercial relations with the Asia-Pacific region to create jobs and economic benefits here at home. The opportunities in this region are great. Asia-Pacific countries represent huge markets with economic growth rates two to three times the global average, and our efforts are yielding results.

For example, last year Canada joined the trans-Pacific partnership, a significant opportunity that serves as a key pathway for economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region. Once complete, the TPP will strengthen Canada's efforts to broaden and deepen its trading relationships with dynamic and fast-growing Asia-Pacific markets.

We launched negotiations with Japan toward an economic partnership agreement and announced exploratory discussions toward a bilateral free trade agreement with Thailand. Canada also achieved observer status with the Pacific alliance, a grouping of four fast-growing Pacific countries in Latin America.

In addition to all this, an important part of Canada's efforts in the Asia-Pacific pertains, of course, to our engagement with China. I would be remiss if I did not highlight that not only is China the world's second-largest economy but it has recently become Canada's number two export market, second only to the United States.

In fact, Canadian exports to China rose 15% last year to over $19 billion. This means that Canada's exports to China have nearly doubled under our Conservative government.

However, investment is also an important part of the Canada-China relationship, and so I would like to take a moment to refute some of these myths being repeated by the anti-trade NDP.

Fundamentally, the foreign investment protection agreement, or FIPA, is about protecting the interests of Canadians abroad. With this treaty, Canadian businesses wanting to invest in China cannot be treated less favourably than any other foreign company looking to do the same. The FIPA also ensures that all investment disputes are resolved under international arbitration, ensuring that adjudications are independent. Canadian investors in China will have an independent, international legal system where their disputes can be fairly resolved.

Ultimately, this agreement would give Canadian investors in China the same types of protection that foreign investors have long had in Canada. This begs the question of why any member opposite would deny Canadian investors the same benefits internationally that foreign investors have here.

Finally, I would emphasize that ours is the first bilateral investment agreement that China has signed that expressly includes language on transparency of dispute settlement proceedings. Let me be clear. It is Canada's long-standing policy that all dispute resolutions should be open to the public and that the submissions made by the parties are available to the public, period.

As our government has said time and time again, this agreement does not impair Canada's ability to regulate and legislate in areas such as the environment, culture and health, nor does it impair the ability of the provinces to do so.

Furthermore, restrictions in the agreement will preserve Canada's current ability to review foreign investments under the Investment Canada Act.

It is unfortunate that the NDP and its fellow anti-trade activists have continued to spread a great deal of misinformation about this agreement. Canadians should not be surprised at the anti-trade agenda of the NDP. After all, this is the same party whose leader travelled to Washington recently to argue against Canadian jobs, nor was that an isolated occurrence. In November 2011, the NDP dispatched its deputy leader to Washington with the same anti-Canadian message.

This is the same party that also opposed NAFTA and the same leader who called Canada's natural resources sector a disease. The NDP continues to oppose NAFTA, an agreement that sparked the creation of millions of Canadian jobs. To this day, the NDP platform commits its party to renegotiating NAFTA, if it ever has the opportunity.

This is the same party whose member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, called free trade agreements “job destroying”, and whose natural resources critic argued that free trade has cost Canadians dearly.

The NDP member for B.C. Southern Interior summarized the NDP's archaic views on trade when he argued that trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”.

Thankfully, Canadian exporters know that our government, unlike the NDP, continues to stand up for trade, jobs and our economy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that the current Conservative government has made trade a key component of its economic policy. If that is the case, it is a miserable failure.

When the Conservatives took power in 2006, the current account situation was that it inherited a surplus of $17 billion. Under their watch, they have now run us into the ground with a $67 billion deficit. We have a record $100 billion deficit in merchandise items.

If my hon. colleague thinks trade is so important, can she explain to Canadians why the policies of her government are running our Canadian exporters into the ground and creating the highest record current account deficits in Canadian history?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Canadians need to ask why the NDP wants to kill jobs and kill the Canadian economy, and why its leader went to Washington to argue against trading with Canada. That is truly what Canadians need to ask.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for mentioning the large budget surplus that the Conservative government inherited from the last Liberal government. I am a bit disappointed at the partisan response, because we are debating a treaty, which has important economic consequences.

I do want to correct the speaker who seemed to be claiming, again in a rather partisan way, that the Liberal Party did not work for trade. The Liberal Party supports trade. I would remind the member that the talks that led to the treaty we are debating today actually began in the years when the Liberals formed government, just a year or two before the Conservatives won the election in 2006.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that during the 13 years of his party's rule, it only brought home three trade agreements, at a time when the global economy was very stable and very open.

We have actually been able to bring home nine free trade agreements under this leadership and government, along with membership in the trans-Pacific partnership and various other trade agreement associations, which will be helpful to our economy and our future.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my hon. colleague's position about Canada's interests in investment in China. It is well thought out.

I find it a little rich when my hon. colleagues from across, particularly the NDP members, look at trade surpluses or deficits in the sense of whether we bring in more imports than we export. We are in a global world. He has heard witness after witness, at committee, testifying as to how integrated we all are. Just because we, for a certain period of time, bring more in than we export, that does not necessarily mean that is bad for Canada. In fact, that is actually a good sign, because we have to bring products in to manufacture them and create them to have greater exports.

I really find it a little rich when the opposition, actually both parties, take the position that it is a really negative thing. It is actually a very good thing, and we will continue to promote trade, as a government.

I want my hon. colleague to answer the question with regard to the position we take on trade, as a government, compared with the opposition, because I think that needs a little more explanation, obviously.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no government in Canada's history has been more committed to creating jobs and prosperity. We lead the G7 countries in creating more than 900,000 jobs in Canada during a fragile economic time. That is because we have taken a strong stand and a proactive stand on negotiating trade agreements with nine different countries.

Deepening Canada's trade relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets, such as the Asia-Pacific, is also critical to the future of Canada. I think the members opposite know that. I would like to strongly encourage them to support this trade agreement and to vote for the Canadian economy and for Canadian jobs, not against them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are resuming debate.

I would just like to compliment hon. members for keeping their interventions to less a minute, as more members are able to participate in these times for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak in favour of the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement on behalf of the great constituents of Canada's largest town, Richmond Hill, Ontario. Richmond Hill is a diverse community, thriving in the heart of the greater Toronto area. I have the honour and privilege and am humbled to be here to represent them.

No government, as my colleague has just stated, in Canada's history has been more committed to creating jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. A key driver of prosperity is free and open trade. That is why our government has adopted the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history.

Our government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness.

While we are opening new markets for our exporters in dynamic, fast-growing markets around the world, we are also ensuring that Canadian investors have the predictable business climates, environments they need to invest with confidence. That is why we pursue foreign investment promotion and protection agreements to provide the predictability investors need when investing in foreign markets.

These bilateral trade and investment treaties are essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadian families. In fact, since the launch of the global commerce strategy, Canada has concluded 16 new or updated foreign investment promotion and protection agreements.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, our government's ambitious pro-trade plan is supporting economic growth and the creation of new opportunities for Canadian exporters and investors.

We are putting in place the conditions necessary to create jobs for Canadians and to capitalize on our strengths as a country. Foreign investment promotion and protection agreements provide greater predictability and protection for investors from both countries that are parties to the agreement.

These treaties support Canadian business efforts to explore the growing investment opportunities in a variety of sectors. Once in force, they provide more stability for Canadian firms investing in the foreign country. The foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is a high standard agreement and is comprehensive in its scope and coverage.

Despite the many naysayers who have said it is important to note that all obligations of the agreement apply reciprocally to both parties to the agreement, it will also grant investors access to the international arbitration to resolve disputes.

The dispute settlement provisions in this treaty ensure greater protection for investors against discriminatory and arbitrary practices and they provide a way for Canadian investors to pursue adequate and prompt compensation in the event of an expropriation.

I would also emphasize that it is, and continues to be, Canada's policy to open all hearings to the public whenever the Government of Canada is challenged under these dispute settlement procedures. This also applies to the relevant documents in an arbitration.

Canada always makes these documents public, subject to the protection of confidential information. What is more, the results of arbitrations will always be made publicly available. It is also important for me to note that in any foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, we take steps to ensure that we maintain full policy flexibility in key areas.

Parties at all levels of government maintain their ability to regulate and legislate in areas such as the environment, culture, safety, health and conservation. All investors and their investments, whether domestic or foreign, will face the same requirements with respect to existing local laws and regulations.

A foreign investor and their investments in Canada must respect existing Canadian laws and regulations just like any Canadian must. This includes laws aimed at protecting the environment and those ensuring the highest labour, health, building and safety standards.

As such, and as is the case with all proposed foreign investments of significance in Canada, we will continue to use the Investment Canada Act to ensure that investments from any foreign country, including China, bring concrete benefits to Canadians. Our FIPA with China will not in any way impede our ability to do so. This means helping to create more jobs, foster innovation and increase Canada's competitiveness and productivity. These are elements that we include in all 24 of our foreign investment promotion and protection agreements that are currently in force.

Our foreign investment promotion and protection agreements allow investors to invest with confidence and confident investors contribute to the growth and investment both inbound and outbound, and growth in investment always benefits the Canadian economy. In fact, two-way investment is an absolutely critical driving force in today's global economy. Investment links our businesses to global value chains and to the technology and expertise they need to forge a wide-range of commercial links with our partners around the globe.

However, the risk of investing in a foreign country can be high. That is why our government negotiates FIPAs to ensure that Canadian investors abroad have access to a predictable, secure investment climate. It is designed first and foremost to protect Canadian investments abroad through legally binding provisions.

By ensuring greater protection against discriminatory and arbitrary practices and enhancing the predictability of a policy framework in markets abroad, a FIPA allows businesses to invest with greater confidence. As such, these agreements provide a more transparent and predictable climate for Canadian investors abroad.

Investment with our partners, inward and outward, is enormously important and so is promoting and protecting these investments through tools such as a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. If Canada can establish a strong rules-based bilateral investment relationship with a country before some of our closest competitors, it will give our companies an advantage in doing business in that market and it will serve to benefit our own industries right here at home.

It is a shame that the NDP members and their anti-trade allies continue to propagate myths about these agreements. Their archaic anti-trade ideology would stifle the Canadian economy and slam the door on opportunities for Canadian exporters around the world. The NDP has shown its true colours on trade ever since NAFTA, which it opposed 25 years ago, and astonishingly enough still opposes to this day.

Let me be clear. Our government will not stand by and let Canadian companies operate in an uneven playing field. We will work to ensure that businesses have what they need to flourish domestically and compete abroad. This is why, on behalf of my constituents of the great town of Richmond Hill, I am happy to support this agreement.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution, Canada has an obligation to consult aboriginal peoples before taking measures that affect their rights.

The Hupacasath nation has filed an injunction with the Federal Court to stop ratification of the FIPA.

How can the member justify that to the House? Why have the Conservatives failed to consult with aboriginal peoples?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very open and public process. We are here debating in the House of Commons an agreement. Parliamentarians, representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast, have an opportunity to rise in their place and ask questions and focus on the Canada-China FIPA agreement.

The NDP's position on trade agreements is very well known. No matter what we put in the agreement, no matter to whom we speak, the New Democrats will stand in their place and vote against it. For some reason, they just do not believe that Canadian companies should have an opportunity to play on an equal playing field when they are investing abroad.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with the member's comments with respect to the NDP, but there is a difference in terms of the way in which the Liberals have approached free trade. At the end of the day, we recognize the importance of having trade agreements.

In fact, we saw that under the Jean Chrétien administration, but we also saw a different approach of trying to get more exports and imports. For example, team China went over and brought in literally hundreds of millions of dollars of trade between the two countries. I believe that is also important.

The member's government does not seem to recognize that value. When the Prime Minister went over, he brought back a couple of panda bears.

Why does the member suspect the trade surplus that the Conservative government inherited through the Paul Martin government was reduced to being into the billions of dollars of a trade deficit? What happened? What did the Conservatives do wrong?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record as obviously the member is not well-informed about what happened in the Prime Minister's visit, and that second historic visit that took place in February of last year. The member referred to the panda bears and we are certainly very happy they are in Canada.

I was part of that delegation. I witnessed 23 Canadian companies' representatives sign agreements with their counterparts in China that added $3 billion to Canada's GDP, to the Canadian economy. Perhaps the hon. member would like to read the record of the visit so he will be much better informed when asking his questions.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what the opposition does not want Canadians to know is that under the Liberal government, yes there were all those missions and expenses and travel here and there abroad, but the trade results did not follow. Under this government, we have achieved something like $40 billion of exports a year, but for the first time in Canadian history, a quarter of that is to countries other than the United States. Of course there has been softness in the United States. It is coming back. However, with today's motion, we hear the NDP and the Liberals from time to time endorsing the idea of walking away from a FIPA.

What would that do to Canada's exports? What would that do to our ability to export and to the growth Canadians have experienced as investors abroad in the past seven years? Could the hon. member comment on the dire implications of today's motion if it were ever to pass?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member states, the implications would be dire. We have set a very strong agenda on increasing our trade relationships with partners around the world. We are building on the Canadian economy. We are still living very much in a fragile economic market worldwide, and Canada, under the leadership of our right hon. Prime Minister, is leading the way in forging relationships in markets that will be open to Canadian businesses and, at the end of the day, benefit each and every Canadian family.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad deal for Canada in terms of Canadian strategic resources, especially energy resources. We already have a bad deal with the United States where it gets a 30% discount, while eastern Canada buys expensive oil from Venezuela and Arabia. I would request the member to please encourage the government to rethink this wrong-headed move.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the hon. member would be against an agreement with a former party he was with. He was well ensconced in that ideology, and I see that he is continuing it.

I would ask that he reconsider his position and that he vote in favour of the agreement. It is good for the constituents in his riding. It is good for all Canadians.