COMMENT: The great Canadian sell-out
It couldn’t have been clearer in a recent interview for Maclean’s magazine, that International Trade Minister Ed Fast viewed maintaining sovereign control over our public services, investments, intellectual property, environmental protection, government procurement and labour mobility as completely irrelevant in sweeping international trade agreements the government negotiates.
Quick as a serpent, Fast labelled those who question the lack of transparency in the negotiations as “anti-investment and anti-trade”, even as he acknowledged that the deals go far beyond the trade of goods.
What started in the 1980s with Mulroney’s push for free trade with the US has now ballooned into huge global trade agreements that threaten the very existence of our nation. Whether it is the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA), the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada the EU or the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, all are designed to erase borders and lock out democracy.
Corporations and countries with the greatest economic power in the world stand to become even more dominant as they gain unfettered access to our vast wealth of natural resources. Conservative omnibus budgets have been paving the way for these bad bargains with drastic measures to undermine workers’ rights and employment insurance, eliminate our environmental watchdog agencies and empower Ministers to make decisions on pipelines and other development projects.
Recently, we heard in the news that, because Canadians have no experience in underground coal mining, hundreds of Chinese miners will be coming to work in four coal mines that are being developed in BC by a number of Chinese companies. At the same time we have unemployed skilled and unskilled workers. Some will remember the Rossland Mining School which offered subsidized training programs to unemployed workers and others for both underground and open pit mining. Students were taught safe operating techniques of mine equipment and operations over a three month program and were hired by mines straight out of school.
Perhaps we need to step back and remind ourselves of some of the negative effects that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and NAFTA have had on our country. Besides the loss of 300,000 manufacturing jobs and locking ourselves into sending cheap oil and gas to the US, we also agreed to allow US Corporations to sue our government if their profits are undermined by our regulations.
Bechtel Corporation was awarded $13 million in taxpayer dollars when it challenged our Environmental laws. According to Gus Van Harten, an Osgoode law professor and expert in investment treaties and arbitration panels, Canadian investors have never won compensation in any of the 16 known lawsuits challenging the US and other countries under NAFTA or Foreign Investment Protection Agreements (FIPAs).
Among other things, the Canada/China agreement exposes taxpayers to costly legal challenges via tribunals that conduct hearings in private at the mere request of one party and do not reflect acceptable standards of the rule of law. The pact does not guarantee Canadian investors full reciprocity with the rights that Chinese investors have secured and has a clause binding Canada for a period of 31 years. Alarmingly, the Conservatives have refused to send this agreement to Committee, where it could be studied in detail and where the input of Canadian stakeholders could be invited.
When our imports from China are three times greater ($48.2 Billion) than our exports ($16.8 billion) we have a trade deficit that makes it is clear how poorly we are being represented in our trade agreements. I would venture to say that most Canadians, regardless of political affiliation, would prefer the path ahead was being laid for a more diversified and well-rounded economy that supports Canadian jobs. We have more than enough bargaining chips with which to negotiate ‘fair trade agreements’. It is time for Canadians to get full value for the resources we export and that the whole world wants.
Alex Atamanenko is the MP for BC Southern Interior.

Comments
"workable"?
Is sending poisons from the Tar Sands, that eventually find their way to the Arctic Ocean, poisoning people and wildlife on their journey, all for $75 a barrel, "workable"?
Is having an eye for responsible development, that addresses sustainability and ecological concerns , while keeping the country's elected government in control of the country's resources and how they are developed, "leftist ideology"?
Since when is empowering the nation's citizenry to take an interest in deciding the future of their land, and to care about future generations, defineable as a "politcal ideology"?
Imagine:
12 People share a well, to which they have sole legal access. One of the 12 works from home, and is close to the well, so the 12 set up a board, and elect the work-from-home person as manager of the well, and custodian of it's "well- being". This scenario works great, until the manager is swayed by an outside agency to develop the well for profit, by sharing the water with this outside agency. However, when the agreement is drawn up, and the board examines it, they find, that in order to gain profit from their well they have to sign an agreement that states that the board no longer has sole decision making power concerning the future of their well, and can actually be sued for "loss of water" by the outside agency, if the Board does anything to restrict water flow to their new "partner". All decisions concerning the well have to have assent from the new partner.
Would this be an intelligent agreement to sign?
I think not--
These situations are occurring in our country, and have occurred before (NAFTA, GATT, etc). Why would we want to tie our own hands again, as we did in the past. The world needs resources---we have resources. We do not need to give up our sovereignty to sell them. Corporations do not care about our future, and the well-being of future Canadians.
If trying to make my fellow Canadians aware of these events brands me a leftist ideologist, so be it. It will be too late to worry about such labels when the fox has killed the hens.
I like this guy's analysis
At least it's not a naysaying, selfish approach that one gets from leftist ideology.
http://www.theprovince.com/touch/news/world/Time+Canada+stop+singing+Kumbaya+capture+larger+share+Asia/7485354/story.html?rel=4211654
7 billion people
The world population has grown from 3 billion in 1960 to 7 billion today.
When humans are thirsty, they need to drink water. When they're hungry, they need food. Humans also need shelter. Unless you advocate living in a cave in the woods, foraging for food and chopping wood for a fire for warmth and cooking, humans will build houses or apartments to live in.
Materials for those shelters may be resourced and fabricated anywhere in the world and transported to the build site. This requires fuel for factories and transportation. Deisel fuel is abundant and economically viable for the task.
Indeed humans need to monitor their activities to be environmentally responsible. That is a goal. So is risk management - something we live with daily in this area.
What was standard practice a hundred years ago is greatly improved. Pristeen? No. No human actvity is pristeen. Not even yours in the woods :)
Par for the Course
It's no surprise to see this "Sell Out" government--carrying on the conservative tradition of converting every Canadian asset possible into a liquid form that can be easily distributed to their corporate friends, who gave them the money to shamelessly promote themselves and appeal to Canadian greed and desire for more wealth--and to gain the majority to finally feel they can do whatever the hell they want without thoughts for the future of the country or it's people, or it's beauty and the future generations that may never see it as is is today.
And to think that we smugly condemn the Americans for their idiotic re-election of George W. Bush, while, at home, we have given this conservative government the majority they needed to carry out these non mandated actions--so similar to Bush's, and Cheney's disregard for the American people when they stormed into Iraq and stole it's resources for their corporate Cronies, while all the time robbing the American taxpayer to pay for the operation, and to make Halliburton one of the richest corporations in the world.
I am so fed up with the short-sightedness of many of my fellow Canadians--and in one way feel: "Well, it's going to serve us right", for being lulled by misleading advertising, and cleverly written campaign speeches delivered by a P.M. whose innocuous countenance seems to belie the true intent of his government, and it's focus on the "Economy", which somehow ends up being economical only for the Wealthy, but not the many who fall beneath the poverty line---the aged, the sick, the poor, those who can't afford adequate education, and those who question, and try to live a sustainable lifestyle in a country whose government that seems to be bent on this "great sellout", as our M.P. has aptly defined it.
"Oh Canada we stand on guard for thee?"--What are we standing on guard for--this sell-out "Economy" or the land that sustains us, a viable, ecologiically based, long-term development, with an eye to the well-being of future generations?
"The True North strong and free?" Strong, because it is filled with exploiters who will protect their interests from anyone who questions the wholesale destruction of many parts of the country? Free, to those who go along with the exploiters, while those who do not agree are labelled radicals, and anarchists? And now new legislation that will allow these exploiters to sue our government, behind closed doors, for the tax dollars that our citizenry has given up for the intelligent management of our country!?
I could go on, but I'll just get sadder! Perhaps I will make this the start to a much longer rant that can be shared around the country, which might promote some reaction, and get a few people thinking where all these policies are going to take us. Geez; didn't we learn anything from the Mulroney years!!
Ironic
The ideological left critical of the ideological right. Neither is workable.