Debates of Dec. 10th, 2012

Opposition Motion—Investment Canada Act

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the discussion from my Liberal colleague very interesting. The act came into effect in 1985 under a Conservative government. Unfortunately for Canada, I do not recall the Liberal Party ever turning down a deal when it was in government.

The Liberals talk about transparency. Exactly what the Investment Canada Act is and what it stands for can be found on the Industry Canada website.

When we were a minority during the last Parliament, the Minister of Industry sent a letter to the industry committee asking it to review the Investment Canada Act on the criteria of net benefit. The Liberals had four or five seats on the committee, and with the Bloc and the NDP, they turned down reviewing that issue. In retrospect, do they think that was a mistake?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the industry committee had decided to accept the minister's request and come to the point of studying the topic that the minister raised in April of 2011 just before the election, I think, as quickly as I would have liked, perhaps in a month or two, it would have been far sooner than it has done since I have been proposing for months and months that the committee do. The member knows that at that point there just happened to be another topic that was the top priority.

However, the member is saying that what the minister proposed then was not any good a month later, after the election, and the Conservatives have been opposed to it since they had a majority, and they would not study it. Even though the minister had suggested it and brought it forward at a time that was convenient for him, a month later, and ever since, over the last year and a half, it has not been convenient for the Conservatives to study it. That is irresponsibility, not transparency.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Before I start, I would like to thank the member for Halifax West for reminding us of the Liberal-Conservative coalition during his speech.

I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for moving this motion. It helps Parliament and Canadians have the debate that the Conservative government would prefer be kept behind closed doors with its well-connected friends. It is the kind of debate that Canada must have. Indeed, it is kind of debate my leader, as Leader of the Opposition, is ensuring we have now and Canadians will have in the next federal election.

Until last Friday at 5 p.m., I had thought the Black Friday sales for shoppers had ended on the day after American Thanksgiving, a few weeks ago. However, Communist China and Malaysia companies knew better. They especially knew where to go for a good sale on our natural resources. No matter what the government says, its actions tell everyone that Canada is for sale.

Imagine the delight of the communist China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Petronas. They find a country willing to sell its natural resources in a secret deal, whose conditions they do not need to divulge, with no public consultation and a green light to lay off workers, lower wages and whatever else they have up their sleeves to bring more petrodollars back home to their countries. They have to be laughing all the way to the bank.

People might think this was a comedy skit, if it were not so sad and serious. The Prime Minister of Canada looks Canadians in the eye and says that he has grave concerns about the sale to China and its increasing ownership of the oil sands. Then he approves the sale of the largest takeover ever, in his next breath.

The Prime Minister races to privatize state-owned companies, like Petro-Canada, and then turns around and welcomes state ownership by companies from communist countries. He is leaving Canadians, provincial governments, like Alberta, and investors wondering what exactly the conditions are for foreign investment.

We were treated to a spectacle this weekend of the Minister of Industry telling Canadians to ask the Chinese what was in the deal. Just imagine. Are there any environmental protections for Canada in this deal? “Ask Communist China” says the Canadian minister. Are there any commitments to keep current workforces in place? “Ask Communist China” says the Canadian minister. Are there any commitments to maintain existing wages? “Ask China.” The government probably needs a link on its government website to the Communist Chinese government for Canadians to know what is happening in their country.

Before 5 p.m. last Friday, I wanted to speak on this NDP opposition day motion. The Calgary Chamber of Commerce in the Prime Minister's home town and a large majority of Canadians are right; we need to clarify the net benefit test for foreign investment.

Why did I want to speak? I am the member for Nickel Belt, and that sits on the world's largest deposit of nickel. Most of my riding residents live in Greater Sudbury, a community that saw its Canadian companies of Falconbridge and Inco sold to Xstrata and Vale, and heard the government mumble like it was mumbling on Friday about net benefits for our workers.

I wanted to speak because I worked for 34 years for Inco and know a little about what actually happened in our community following the sale of our companies to foreign investors. Despite all the talk of net benefit to Canada and Greater Sudbury, we saw layoffs at Vale Inco and Xstrata Falconbridge.

When the Conservatives approved the sale of Falconbridge to Xstrata, they received assurance that there would be no layoffs or job losses for three years. Xstrata broke that promise, eliminating 686 permanent jobs. The Conservative government took no action.

After the takeover of Inco by the Brazilian giant, Vale, workers suffered through a long and bitter strike when the employer tried to cut wages. The Conservative government took no action.

I wanted to speak because I have now reintroduced in this Parliament five private member's bills that would amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure there would be transparency, accountability and public consultation, which are now lacking in these foreign investment deals. I will speak more about those bills in a few moments.

We can understand the skepticism of Canadians listening to the Minister of Industry's absurdity on the weekend that China could explain to Canadians the details of this sweetheart deal to CNOOC. That is the kind of nonsense we used to hear from the President of the Treasury Board when he was minister of industry.

Despite thousands and thousands of emails pouring in to the Prime Minister's office with the subject heading that Canada was not for sale, the government is selling off Canada's natural resources. Hundreds of those emails came from my own riding of Nickel Belt. Eighty per cent of Canadians know this kind of deal does not serve the interests of Canadians.

Friday's announcement brought bad news: there is nothing to clarify the “net benefit” test; there are no assurances that public consultations will be held with Canadians, who will bear the consequences of these takeovers; there are no assurances of mandatory disclosure of the guarantees given by investors or that they will be enforced in a transparent and responsible manner; there is no improved reciprocity for Canadian investors outside Canada; and there are no assurances that governments' records of interference in the activities of state-owned corporations will be reviewed.

Let us hear what commentators were writing this weekend about this deal.

Andrew Coyne wrote that it was all about politics and not policy. He said that the political balancing act was at the cost of total incoherence in policy terms.

Workers on the ground in Alberta know better. The Alberta Federation of Labour said the Prime Minister was saying what Canadians wanted to hear, while doing what they did not want and that these tough new conditions were no more than a public relations ploy.

The so-called unprecedented new rules to foreign investment are still largely behind closed doors for the industry minister's decision with no public input, filled with exceptions and still as ambiguous as ever.

If this is a line in the oils sands, as the front page of the Globe and Mail suggests today, it is pretty much an invisible and moving line. So much for protection for our strategic industries, especially from state-owned enterprises in emerging markets. We can do better as a country. In fact, we must.

We need the Investment Canada Act to work for Canada. The NDP recognizes the need for foreign investment and foreign trade when it works for Canada. We need to clarify the net benefit test, introduce parameters around reciprocity, improve the transparency of decisions and set specific criteria for state-owned companies to meet net benefit requirements in order to protect the Canadian economy for potential foreign government interference.

My private member's bill, Bill C-333, would require the responsible minister, on written application by a Canadian citizen, to disclose both the written undertakings by a foreign company in respect of its investment in a takeover and what Canada had demanded in return.

My private member's bill, Bill C-334, would require public consultation with representatives of industry and labour, provincial and local authorities and other interested persons. It would require non-Canadian investors to provide the Director of Investments with a surety that may be forfeited if non-Canadian investors failed to satisfactorily complete all of the undertakings they had made to the Government of Canada in connection with the investment.

The FIPA that this government signed with the Communists stipulates that once the Chinese takeover is complete, the company must be considered a Canadian company. Thus, once the FIPA has been ratified, CNOOC will have extensive rights that will allow it to increase its control over the oil sands, for instance, by buying up new oil leases. It is now clear that the Conservatives have failed to limit the influence of state-owned corporations in the oil industry.

This is no way to manage the economy. This confusion on rules, this secrecy, this failure to clarify rubber stamping and approval make a mess of things. We on this side are with the vast majority of Canadians who do not trust the Chinese state to run Nexen in the interests of Canadians. It will run the Canadian oil sands in the interest of its central party committee of the communist Chinese party that runs the country. We need a government in Canada that puts Canadians first.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary to hear such fire being breathed on the other side about communist China. We on this side tend to rely on members opposite for insights into that system. Clearly, posturing in the House knows no bounds, at least on that side.

We need to know something from the member. Nickel Belt is a riding whose very name is synonymous with the powerful combination that Canadian and foreign investment have represented for Canadians and Canadian workers over decades and indeed centuries. Northern Ontario and Sudbury were developed that way. If the hon. member thinks that Inco and Falconbridge would have been developed without any foreign investment, without any access to investment from beyond our borders, he is quite simply wrong.

Does the member opposite understand that foreign investment is important to keeping the economy strong and to building it in the future, or is he with Jim Stanford, the chief economist of the Canadian Auto Workers, who in today's paper says that Canada does not need foreign investment? If he does think there should be foreign investment, a bit of it, how much of the over $600 billion invested in the country would he—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unless there was a coup last night that I never heard of, China is a communist country, run by communists. Therefore, I do not know where the member is coming from.

I appreciate his reference to Nickel Belt because I must remind him that Inco was a hundred and some years old and it was well invested and well run when it was run by Canadians. Now that it has been bought by a Brazilian company, it has brought nothing but grief to our community.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question for the member because I do think there is some validity to the question. From the New Democratic Party's perspective, when we look at overall foreign investment that come into Canada, which is in the area of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, could the member acknowledge that there is great benefit in many ways from foreign investment?

I agree in principle with what the motion says in the sense that we want to see more transparency. The public has a right to know what is in the details of the agreement. Perhaps he might want comment on how the government has done a disservice by not providing the details and kind of hiding what the details are with regard to the current agreement with Nexen.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the NDP is not against foreign ownership. What we want is transparent ownership. We want ownership that is a net benefit to Canadians. We want good Canadian ownership. We want good Canadian jobs. What those guys are doing right now is investing in Chinese jobs, not Canadian jobs.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was working in the aluminum sector in 2007 when Rio Tinto bought Alcan, a true gem. There were six dams, a deep water port, a railway and the plants, not to mention our natural resources.

If we could do it over again today, does my colleague believe that we could pass legislation to ensure that these assets worth $38 billion would belong to Canadians and not to foreign companies and that decisions would not be made outside our borders, considering Canada's needs?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma for that very good question. I would like to commend him on the work he does in committee. He does a lot for his constituents.

There has been a great deal of foreign investment in Canada, and so much could have been different, more transparent. We could be kept informed about everything that goes on between the government and foreign companies. This has been going on for years, and it is time for things to change.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I will clarify for the members of the House that this motion put forward by the official opposition today has nothing to do with whether one is for or against foreign investment. On this side of the House, we have been very clear that we are for foreign investment, but what we need is governance and protection of sovereignty. That is the responsibility of those on the other side of the House who were elected to govern.

Our motion today mirrors calls by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce following another motion by the New Democrat opposition. Two years ago, on November 4, the former NDP leader, the late Jack Layton, moved a motion, which received the unanimous support of all the parties in this House that called for immediate steps to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure the views of those most directly affected by takeovers would be considered; that any decision that a takeover bid delivers, a net benefit to Canada would be made transparent; to make public hearings a mandatory part of the review; to make the hearings open to all directly affected; that all conditions be made public and transparent and that there be improved monitoring and enforcement with stiff penalties; and to clarify the goals of foreign takeover reviews and that it does not merely allow the control of a Canadian asset .

When he tabled his motion, the late Jack Layton said:

The NDP is not opposed to foreign investment, but it wants to ensure that it is good investment, investment that creates jobs in innovative areas, that promotes sustainable practices and that produces other benefits that Canadians are looking for. When it comes to selling major Canadian companies, we believe that Canadians need to know how the sale will benefit them. But that will not happen as long as the Investment Canada Act is not amended. Right now, decisions are made behind closed doors. Government does not have to tell us. We are just supposed to take its word for it when it approves these takeovers, and frankly, Canadians are left in the dark when it comes to the future of their natural resources, their jobs and key industries in our economy.

I actually took the time to read the legislation that is before us today. I always feel it is very important that we actually know the context within which the government is making its decisions: Are there actually some problems with the legislation or is it a problem in the way that the legislation is being interpreted and applied? What I discovered in reviewing the legislation was that it was rather vague in its reference. Surprisingly, however, there are a number of discretionary powers granted to the ministers under the legislation that they could actually exercise to make this process more fair, open and transparent. Therefore, it may not necessarily be a problem with the legislation but a problem with the mindset and attitude of the Conservatives who simply do not believe that anybody but the two parties at the table have a right to participate in the sale of Canadian assets, how that sale should proceed, what kind of conditions will be imposed and how they will be enforced.

What actions did the government take to improve the regime after it voted unanimously for the late Jack Layton's motion? It introduced a number of measures which, as business lawyers have pointed out to us, are not adequate. It varied the thresholds for net benefit from $330 million into the future to $1 billion per enterprise value. Legal experts are saying that is really not clear and that we do not know what enterprise values are. The April omnibus budget bill managed to sneak in new powers for the minister for security payments but the lawyers say that the mechanisms are limited and that there is no penalty for non-compliance unless there is a court hearing.

The government has also introduced the idea of mediation. It has done this by guideline. What I found most interesting when reviewing the legislation was that in this very critical regime, not only in a foreign takeover but a foreign takeover by another sovereign body, most of the decision making by the government is by guidelines. There is no review in this place or by the public, and those guidelines are not legally binding. Therefore, there is no consequence if they are not followed.

It is also very important that, when conditions are imposed, individuals cannot even go to court until they first try to resolve the issue through various other means. It sounds like they can circumvent that and go by mediation. It is not clear then that this is enforceable.

The critical aspects of foreign takeovers yet to be reformed include, for example, the processes for approving or rejecting takeovers is still behind closed doors. The detailed reasons are not revealed. As some of my colleagues have stated, the government has suggested we contact China if we want to find out the details.

The second issue is the net benefit to Canadians criteria. The effect on the employee is not defined or clarified. It is not clear if that includes the necessity to reveal if the foreign national intends to import labour or to rely on temporary foreign workers.

The aspect of the effect on resource processing does not specifically require a commitment for value-added upgrades or for additional employment in Canada. Additional factors have not been added whatsoever despite undertakings two years ago.

There is no requirement to consider the compliance record of the entity trying to take over Canadian corporations. There has been a lot of concern expressed by Canadians about the compliance record of some of these companies that are bidding.

There is no requirement to consider human rights and labour. There have been many concerns raised by both Amnesty International and, most recently, by the Canadian Coalition on Human Rights. They have stated that even the revised guidelines for investments by state-owned enterprises announced today failed to incorporate human rights considerations. Also, as has been raised by many in the House, including the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and a lot of the oil and gas sector, there is no reciprocity for Canadian investment in the foreign national that is bidding.

What about the record on enforcement? As I mentioned, the minister actually has a number of powers to enforce these conditions. As my colleague, who spoke before me, was sharing, this is one example where the government has allowed a foreign takeover, presumably with conditions. No action has been taken to actually enforce those conditions. We have had case after case in this country where conditions have been imposed and the government has failed to assert its responsibility to enforce those conditions.

What about the national security trigger? It was much to my surprise to discover that in the legislation, even when the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that there might be a concern with the national security, he or she has complete discretion to look into whether there might be an issue for national security. Surely this is another issue that needs to be considered openly with the public and with the House on how to make this a much better regulatory regime to provide governance for foreign takeovers.

Regarding transparency, the law currently provides an array of powers for the minister to disclose more information. In his discretion, he is deciding not to. Is there more clarity in the takeover rules? No. With the government's decision to approve the Nexen-CNOOC takeover, neither Canadian investors nor Canadians generally are left with greater clarity of the rules. Worse is when a bid will be allowed and when not.

Many constituents, including resource lawyers and members of oil and gas companies based in Alberta, have raised concerns with me over the past few months. One lawyer, who is the vice-president of a pipeline company, stated that she had seven serious concerns dealing with reciprocity, no dealing with human rights and no evidence the takeover would create Canadian jobs.

This motion calls for a comprehensive review of the Investment Canada Act, the need for clarification of net benefit rules, improved transparency, greater consideration as to reciprocity and conditions to protect Canada against foreign government interference. These are exactly the measures that the Calgary Chamber of Commerce called for at the finance committee.

I would concur with a number of speakers this morning. What are exceptional circumstances? We have absolutely no clarity. We are no further ahead except that we now have a foreign national that which will own some of our resources in the north of Alberta. As the Prime Minister said, “this is not the beginning of a trend, but the end of a trend.” In the words of Andrew Coyne, “What trend?”

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit with my colleague on a government committee and I appreciate the work she does.

I would like to read out one of the six criteria outlined now on the website with the net benefit test. I would like to know the NDP's position, what word changes it is looking for and what thoughts it has put into the changes it would like to see. Let us take the example of the effect of the investment on competition within industries within Canada. What would the NDP do to change that criteria?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working on committee with the member as well.

I will tell the member exactly what I would do, which is what all of my colleagues on this side of the House would do. We would take that provision to the public and to the industry sector for their opinions on how we would determine those factors. The government should be doing the same thing with all of the legislation it is tabling with respect to first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in order to make an assessment on whether a deal is good or bad, we need to have some sense of the terms and conditions of the agreement itself in terms of its transparency and clarity. Those things have really been lacking with respect to this particular deal. On the other hand, the Prime Minister talks about clarity and transparency but has failed to deliver that.

How can Canadians best evaluate this deal if they are not being provided with the necessary information in order to decide for themselves whether it is a good or bad deal? I wonder if the member might comment on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member can actually expect me to answer the question when it is a rhetorical question. However, the answer is that no Canadian can properly assess whether this was a good deal or not because no Canadian had access to the information on which the government made the decision. That is precisely what our motion is about. That is precisely what our motion was about two years ago. It is precisely what the Calgary Chamber of Commerce had called for.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member will have about two minutes left for questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, we are on a collision course to global disaster with a dangerous disconnect between the political timetable and what science is warning us is a rapidly closing window to avoid runaway global warming. Scientists warn us that everything is speeding up from what they anticipated. Arctic ice is melting faster, permafrost is melting and sea levels are rising. At the same time, we are watching the glaciers in retreat while fires and droughts are on the rise.

In Copenhagen, and again just last week in Doha, Canada committed to a process that will not take legal force until 2020. However, science warns us that if we do not ensure that greenhouse gas levels stop rising and begin to fall by 2015, not just here in Canada but also globally, it will be too late to take action.

The time is now to move from rhetoric to action and recommit to Kyoto, which in five days we will have legally exited.

Young Artists

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past August I was very excited to launch my second annual Scarborough Centre art contest for children ages 12 and under. The contest was aptly named “A Call to All Up and Coming Young Artists”. As an artist myself, I was thrilled to receive so many submissions from so many talented young people in my riding.

This past weekend I had the distinct pleasure of announcing the winners at a special unveiling ceremony in my constituency office. I wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their winning entries: Fei Fei, age 12; Alexia, age 11; Bairavie, age 10; Leah, age 9; and Milena, the youngest winner at age 3.

The work of these very talented individuals is now on display in my office and proudly showcased throughout my 2013 parliamentary calendar for all constituents to enjoy.

I invite all hon. members to join me in encouraging and congratulating these young aspiring artists on their outstanding creative achievements.

24h Tremblant

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, my leader and a few of my NDP colleagues and I stopped in at Tremblant's 24 hours of skiing. The event drew more than 2,000 participants and raised $2 million for four foundations that focus on children.

This event also gave me an opportunity to talk to business people from my region. In their opinion, investments in the region, which exceed $1 billion, will pay off only if there is an effective air transportation system with a complete customs service.

My constituents in Laurentides—Labelle would like to start 2013 on the right foot. I am sure the Minister of Public Safety has received my request for a meeting on this. I hope to hear from him soon.

European Union

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a ceremony today in Oslo, Norway, the European Union is being awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize for having contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe for over six decades.

As president of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, I had the honour today of celebrating this achievement with the heads of mission from all EU member states, as well as the diplomatic corps, at an event at the government conference centre.

Canada has deep and strong ties to the European Union. Given the many sacrifices Canada made during two world wars and since, it is gratifying to know that the EU's dedicated efforts to maintain peace, stability and democracy are being recognized with this prestigious honour.

On behalf of the members of the House, I congratulate the European Union and wish it well as it navigates the difficult challenges it still faces.

Violence Against Women

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I met with a group of experts, including academics, service providers and front-line workers, on the subject of violence against women, this on the very day a new study was released saying that most Canadian women personally know someone who has been a victim of violence. This is a shocking reality, especially since it has been more than 20 years since the December 6 massacre in Montreal, a day when violence against women took a horrifyingly public form.

This cannot be permitted to continue and I am calling upon all parliamentarians to help. It is time for the government to wake up and take action to put an end to violence, harassment and abuse against our daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers and neighbours. It is time for a national action plan to end violence against women. Most importantly, it is time for federal leadership on a social ill that has plagued society for centuries.

Christmas Season

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this season when we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, many of our fellow Canadians who wear the uniform must spend Christmas in conflict far away from loved ones.

However, the spirit of Christmas is also the spirit of hope, the spirit that inspired the Christmas truce of 1914 that covered as much as two-thirds of the British-German front in World War I, when thousands of soldiers on both sides, told to hate, loathe and kill, laid down their weapons, left their trenches, extended the hand of friendship and exchanged greetings and gifts and sang songs of goodwill toward men. It grew out of no single initiative, but sprang up in each place spontaneously and independently.

That truce remains a symbol of hope that the world some day “shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”.

Let us remember that the spirit of Christmas is the spirit of peace.

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on this day in 1948. It says that everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing and housing. Canada has far too many people paying more than they can afford in rent.

It is our daughter Hollie's 37th birthday today. She has Crohn's disease and can no longer work. Typical of many Canadians on disability, her benefits are too small to provide an adequate standard of living. She pays too much in rent. She will never own a home or a car. She cannot afford Internet or cable TV. She will never have an RRSP. She could never qualify for non-refundable tax credits. She had to give up trying to provide for her son, who now lives with his father.

We need a national housing strategy like in Bill C-400, so that families can have enough after rent for their children, their health and for their future, and we need to keep our promises to the UN on the rights of the disabled. They deserve, as a human right, adequate incomes to provide shelter, health and food.

Season's Greetings

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend holiday greetings to all those celebrating during this time of year. The holidays are a perfect time to gather with family and friends, and to be thankful for all we have been blessed with over the past year. It is also a time to share generously with those less fortunate.

Christmas is the day we remember the birth of Jesus and the lasting impression he has made on so many lives. It is also a time for family and friends to celebrate joy and love.

Today is also the second day of Hanukkah, which marks the triumph of good over evil, light over darkness. Amid the darkness that still plagues many societies around the world, Canada's light shines brightly.

Let us also remember the brave men and women in uniform stationed around the world who are spending this holiday season away from their loved ones.

I would like to wish all those celebrating in Mississauga and across Canada a merry Christmas and a happy Hanukkah.

New Democratic Party of Canada

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost Christmas, a time when our thoughts naturally turn to family, friends and gift giving.

This Christmas the NDP members are behaving more like Scrooge than Santa. They want to give Canadians the gift of a carbon tax. This is no gift, but a money grab, a lump of coal that would create hardships all across Canada for hardworking families.

The oil sands fuel the economy and create jobs in all parts of Canada. Every day, workers fly out of northern Alberta, my home, taking their well-earned good wages back to their families in Newfoundland, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and all of Canada.

A carbon tax like the NDP is proposing would critically hurt Canadian families. Our government has lowered taxes for all Canadians, promoted trade, increased exports and kept our economy stable.

I ask all Canadians during the holidays to raise their voice and say no to the NDP lump of coal, no to the NDP carbon tax.