The second point is that for all that CETA has more attention than the Canada-China Investment Treaty, it does not have enough either.

Unlike the Canada-China Investment Treaty, this trade deal is one the Prime Minister has not kept under a barrel.  It has already been over-hyped by PMO with Stephen Harper claiming the deal will bring $12 billion worth of benefit toCanada. Even though this figure was called into question by an assessment conducted by the European Commission, a study that put the benefits at a more conservative $3-6 billion, Mr. Harper continues to use the exaggerated figure.

The proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (known as CETA) is an ambitious attempt to cover huge aspects of our economy – impacting health care costs, supply management in agriculture, procurement, arts and culture to name a few.  As well, like the Canada-China Investment Treaty it would create opportunities for arbitration for claims for the EU investors against Canada and vice versa. It has been on a three year negotiation track with the goal of concluding negotiations by the end of this year. But Matthias Brinkmann, head of the European Union Delegation to Canada, thinks the deadline may not be met.  Speaking in Halifax on October 22, 2012,  Brinkmann confirmed that little to no progress has been made on most of the key issues.  The issues identified as among those Brinkmann describes as leaving the most difficult until last include patent protection for pharmaceuticals, procurement rules for public projects, supply management in agriculture, rules of origin and investor-state provisions.

That’s a long list to get done by the end of this year.  And then there’s the approval process.  The EU must vote to approve and so must each parliament of the 27 member states. And some member states are already angry with Canada over more restrictive Visa requirements (Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria) and quite a lot of parliamentarians, certainly all those in green Parties in the EU Parliament itself, as well as Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Italy, to name a few, are concerned about Canada’s efforts to over-turn the Carbon Fuel Standard, disrupt global climate negotiations, undermine the Kyoto Protocol,  our appalling obstruction in June 2011 at the Rotterdam Convention asbestos discussions, to name a few.  Even if this agreement were negotiated between Canada and the EU, approval is far from a sure thing.  One thing the Prime Minister cares about (CETA) could be sabotaged by his record on things he thought didn’t matter (Kyoto, climate, asbestos).

Take it as read that the Green Party will support the civil society groups that are opposed to higher prices for pharmaceutical drugs by granting greater patent protection to EU Big Pharma. We will oppose any agreement that undermines our ability to ensure municipal water systems remain public, or that undercut the Canadian arts and culture sector.  We will insist that any new trade agreement be about fair trade and a fair deal for Canadians.

There is no need to rush the negotiations to a desperate last push this year.  Given the EU approval process, it is more important to get the right deal than a rushed deal.

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Originally printed in Embassy News.

The post Get the right deal, not a rushed deal appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would ask my hon. friend to bear in mind that some people will take desperate steps to escape unbearable circumstances, and they will bring their families.

Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, on the topic of Hungary, we do accept legitimate refugees. However, it is a fact that 95% of refugee claims from Hungary were just abandoned, suggesting that these people were not genuine refugees. They did not have the fear to actually pursue their refugee claim in Canada so they just abandoned it and disappeared into the system.

What we are trying to strengthen through Bill C-31 are those kinds of situations where it is clearly a fraudulent refugee claim used to exploit Canada’s generous refugee and immigration system. By doing biometrics, by putting the other elements of Bill C-31 in place, we will address those issues.

The post Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (Bill C-31) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I refer to a recent quote from Mr. Justice Hughes in the Federal Court. This was a case that just came down February 22 of this year, Hercegi v. Canada, in which Mr. Justice Hughes said:

…the evidence is overwhelming that Hungary is unable presently to provide adequate protection to its Roma citizens.

I ask my hon. friend to comment on this kind of specific problem.

Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, once again, our bill seeks to stem that huge flow that is seeking to abuse our asylum system.

Certainly, as the hon. member mentioned, there are other situations. They can be addressed within a particular act. Just because a country is designated a safe country does not mean they do not have other means to get to Canada. They do. They have other options open to them. It does not mean we are closing the door to them, but it would just be done in a different way.

The post Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (Bill C-31) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

My concern is that we are now saying that people who arrive by irregular entry would be placed in some form of detention. We are also saying that if they do not come from a country that we recognize as potentially legitimate in terms of their seeking refuge, they would not be allowed in at all.

In the case of Hungary, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that “the evidence is overwhelming that Hungary is presently unable to provide adequate protection to its Roma citizens”.

Does my colleague believe that creating a blanket rule that certain countries are safe and certain countries are not would create a threshold that actually would keep people who need our help from being allowed to come to Canada.

Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that relevant question. I have here a document I got from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. I would like to read what it says about the bill:

Bill C-31 gives the Minister broad and vague powers over the lives of refugees. The Minister says he will exercise those powers prudently and fairly. But the Bill also minimizes the Minister’s accountability for how he uses those powers. The Bill contains few remedies if there is an abuse of power by the Minister or his agents. 

The minister tells us to trust him but that is not good enough in democracy.

The post Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (Bill C-31) appeared first on Elizabeth May.