House of Commons Hansard #94 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was investment.

Topics

Korean War Veterans
Statements By Members

November 4th, 2010 / 2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, the United Nations came to the aid of South Korea when advancing North Korean forces reached the capital of Seoul. I am proud to say that when South Korea needed us, Canada did not hesitate to support that United Nations force.

This week, as we mark Veterans' Week, we are reminded of the brave Canadians who left home to defend the values of freedom and democracy for others. Our troops fought in a severe climate and through unknown and rugged terrain. On July 27, 1953, after three long years, an armistice was signed at Panmunjom to bring an end to the fighting in Korea.

On Saturday, November 14, I will have the honour to attend a ceremony at the United Nations cemetery in Pusan, a place I used to live, where many of the 516 brave Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving with the United Nations forces are buried.

This week I urge all Canadians to proudly honour our brave Korean War veterans. Lest we forget.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Ontario

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, when asked about the sale of PotashCorp, the Prime Minister said that he did not care whether it was under American or Australian control. That meant that he was in favour of the sale of PotashCorp. Yesterday the government did an about-face and said no, but it said we have to wait another 30 days to see if the buyer comes up with a better offer.

Will the Prime Minister put an end to all this flip-flopping and incompetence and clearly tell the House today that the answer is, and will always be, no?

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a process in place, set out by law. The government followed that process. The minister listened to the apprehensions and concerns of all Canadians and then made a decision. I commend that decision, and I am sure that all the members of this government congratulate the minister on a decision made in the best interests of the Canadian economy.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Ontario

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: which decision? A final decision or a decision that could be reversed in 30 days? That is the question.

The interesting thing here is that the Prime Minister has gone 180° on this issue. First he said that he did not care about the foreign control of this asset and then yesterday the government took a different position.

The Prime Minister likes to entertain us with his talk of high principle. How does he explain his own personal flip-flop on this issue?

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, let me explain the process to the Leader of the Opposition.

The minister has rendered a decision and, under the law, the company has 30 days to make further representations to the minister. The obligation of the minister and the government has been to listen to all of the facts and to all points of view from Canadians.

As I said earlier, I congratulate, and I know all members of the government want to congratulate, the Minister of Industry on taking a decision that is clearly in the best interests of the Canadian economy.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Ontario

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, it is still a flip-flop, and we still do not know why the government made its decision or even whether the decision is final. This suggests that we need a foreign investment review process that is more transparent and more accountable and with better consultation with the provinces.

Will the Prime Minister learn from his mistakes on this deal and reform the institutional review process for foreign investment?

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the process is determined by legislation. Of course the government and Parliament can review that legislation and may want to do so at some point in the future.

However, no one should doubt this government's policy. The policy of this government is that, generally speaking, foreign investment is in the interests of the Canadian economy and an open global trading economy.

At the same time, we do have laws that require major investments to be reviewed to ensure they are in the best interests of this country and, when they are not in the best interests of this country, this government will not hesitate to block a transaction.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the person responsible for military procurement did not request any information in order to compare the F-35s to other planes.

Without any hard evidence, in 2006 he sent a secret memo saying that the F-35 was the only option for replacing the CF-18s.

This is the largest military procurement in the history of Canada. Why did the Prime Minister not take the time to consider what the competition had to offer?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the member knows there was a process because he was part of the process.

Jacques Saada, a former Liberal member of Parliament now working in the aerospace industry, said that the process led to nine partners to opt for the F-35. He went on to say that although there was no call for bids, there was a very serious selection process.

The current ADM materiel for the department states:

We did consider the Eurofighter. We did consider Super Hornets...and several other aircraft. We worked with our international allies and so on to identify costs of ownership.

There was a process and the member knows it. He is making it up.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, the minister's process looks more like a summer student search on Wikipedia.

The Conservatives did not even ask the American or European governments for classified information on other fighter jets. It is becoming obvious that the government blindly chose the F-35 and considered in substance nothing else.

Our military deserves better and Canadian taxpayers deserve better than the handing over of a blank cheque. Why are the minister and the Prime Minister so irresponsible with taxpayer money?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member go online and find a position that he can stick to. He used to be in favour of this process. In fact, these arguments are getting as old and as worn as the Sea Kings that the Liberal Party refused to replace for 13 long years.

This investment is good for the air force. It is good for the aerospace industry. It is a process that the member was a part of when he was in government. The Liberals should support Canadian jobs, especially those in the Montreal area.

When will we hear from Montreal MPs? When will they set their leader straight, that this is a good thing for our country?

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Conseil du trésor du Québec, Michelle Courchesne, said that she has sent all the necessary information to the federal Minister of Transport so that he can make a quick decision on extending the deadline for infrastructure projects.

Will the government listen to reason and extend the March 31, 2011, deadline, which is threatening 353 projects worth $210 million? These numbers are not insignificant. They come from Quebec City.

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon
B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I had a good meeting with Ms. Courchesne. In fact, she gave me that information two days ago.

As promised, now we have the information in hand. We had a very good meeting with Madame Courchesne and Monsieur Lessard. As usual, we have an excellent relationship with the Government of Quebec. Now that we have the data, we can go through it and work together to get a fair and reasonable way of dealing with the issues that she has raised with us.

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, not only has Quebec sent all the necessary information for the government to make a quick decision—not in three weeks, we have been talking about this for months—but it has specifically proposed extending the deadline from March 30, 2011, to December 31, 2011. That is a specific proposal, and it would help save 353 projects worth $210 million.

Will the government agree to Quebec's request to extend the deadline to December 31, 2011?

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon
B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about it for months, but I just received the information two days ago. That is why it is important that we go through this information. That is exactly what I asked for.

The Government of Quebec is working with us on that, which is excellent news. However, there are other questions we wonder about. We have been working on this for months. We have put hundreds of millions of dollars into Quebec. Why has the Bloc Québécois been opposed to every budgetary motion that we have brought forward? I do not understand. Why do those member not stand up for Quebec? Why do they not help us deliver the goods for Quebec?