An investment treaty with China that would turn Canada into a "resource colony" is about to be ratified despite almost no parliamentary debate, opposition critics charge.
Bolstered by more than 60,000 signatures on petitions and a finely targeted letter-writing campaign led by activists, the opposition NDP, Liberals and Green Party leader Elizabeth May are opening a last-minute push for a fuller debate on the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China.
"China is just as important as the United States and we should really be treating this treaty with just the same level of public scrutiny and debate as NAFTA," said Matthew Carroll, campaigns director for Leadnow.ca, an advocacy group that organized the petition and has flooded MPs with emails and letters.
Canada and China signed the agreement at the beginning of September, and the government tabled it in the House of Commons near the end of that month. Under new rules set by the Conservatives, the agreement must be before Parliament for 21 sitting days before it can be ratified.
That time runs out on Thursday. After that, the cabinet needs to sign off on it through an order-in-council. It's not an automatic process, but the Conservatives have given every indication that ratification is imminent.
The agreement comes into force when both countries have ratified it.
"I'm hoping that Stephen Harper receives sufficient pressure from the people of Canada and from the members of his own caucus that he will go back to China and say we have to do little bit more drafting before we ratify this," said May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, in an interview.
"It has to be renegotiated at least to the extent that - why not have the same opt-out period as NAFTA - six months and you're out," May said. "This treaty says we're in it for a minimum of 15 years which automatically rolls over to another 15 years unless the federal government puts in a one-year written notice for leaving the treaty."
When asked if the government would be willing to hold off on ratification to allow for more debate, Rudy Husny, a spokesman for International Trade Minister Ed Fast, said the agreement has been 18 years in the making and is a replica of many other foreign investment protection agreements Canada has with its trading partners.
"With this agreement, our government is bringing to Canadian investors the protection and predictability to invest with confidence in China, the world's second largest economy," Husny said.
The opposition has had ample opportunity to examine the China deal, but chose to use its four opposition days in Parliament on other subjects, he added.
Plus, government officials have briefed MPs on the deal, he said.
"The NDP and the Liberals are simply misleading Canadians."
May said she's moved heaven and earth to get a debate before the House. "I can't tell you how panicked I am by the thought this could become a binding treaty on Canada for the next 31 years with no debate in the House, no vote in the House, and essentially no effort to ensure the Canadian public even knows this is happening," May said.
Critics argue that the deal should have gone before parliamentary committees to be examined by experts for its implications as well as for flaws and weaknesses.
May argues that the deal would give Chinese corporations - and the government that owns them - new powers to influence Canadian policy, not just in terms of investment and industrial development, but also in the realms of environment and health.
And since Canada is clearly the junior partner in the trading relationship, Canadian governments at all levels will have little choice but to cater to the whims of a China desperate for natural resources.
"We become the resource colony in that context," said May.
The Saanich-Gulf Islands MP agrees that the treaty would help Canadian investors in China, but at what price, she asks.
"Should we owe China money if we decide we need to do a better job of protecting our environment, or change the rules around the use of labour in Canada, and any number of decisions that can give rise to these complaints by the People's Republic of China?
