Chris Alexander

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

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—

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we were quite clear on why the oil sands merit special attention and special scrutiny. There is no asset in Canada on this scale in the natural resources field or elsewhere, which is in such great demand. The inability of the member opposite to acknowledge that fact demonstrates a certain lack of understanding of the Canadian economy.

My question to him has to do with the distinction we have now made between a Canada that is open for business from the private sector worldwide for the oil sands and elsewhere, and a Canada that is now determined under this government to scrutinize what enterprises controlled by a foreign government might wish to do in our oil sands.

Does the Liberal Party of Canada accept that this is a necessary distinction if we are to protect the free enterprise initiative, the leadership of free enterprise in the oil sands, in our energy sector and in our economy as a whole? Is the Liberal Party of Canada going to stick to its usual line of being prepared to rubber-stamp investments across the board, which would have the effect of potentially opening the door to a Canadian oil sands sector dominated by state-owned enterprises? Is that a result that the hon. member wants to see?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a question like that is revealing because it shows how far the Liberal Party, even today, is from understanding the reality of the Canadian economy. For someone on that side, perhaps it is not surprising to hear him asking why the oil sands are special and deserve special scrutiny. It is because they are the object of unparalleled interest in investment circles globally. As the Prime Minister has said, state-owned enterprises have been particularly active recently in acquiring companies involved in the Canadian oil sands, and others may have followed suit without clarification of the rules.

Does the Liberal Party realize, as the NDP clearly does not, that the oil sands are an asset? Clearly, some of the statements we heard by Liberal members of Parliament about Alberta would lead one to question whether they understand the importance of this sector, of this asset, for the Canadian economy as a whole.

As the Prime Minister said, of those proven oil resources not controlled by governments—and governments control very many of them, whether in Latin America or the Gulf—some 60% are in Canada's oil sands. That, in and of itself, should justify very close scrutiny. It should justify clear rules and guidelines. That is exactly what Canadians were given by the Prime Minister on Friday.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is very simple. Canadians have the protection afforded to them by the laws of Canada, by the rule of law upheld in the commercial sector across the board in this country. We are proud of the fact that we have among the most robust regimes in the world governing our intellectual property. We know that the NDP delights in poking sticks into the system, threatening to undermine it, whether it relates to pharmaceutical drugs or cultural industries. It blows hot and cold on the rule of law, especially when it involves intellectual property, innovation and research and development, which are affected by even small changes to the intellectual property regime.

Anything that is protected, anything that has been invented by a Canadian and to whom a Canadian patent belongs, including a company or person holding that patent, will be afforded the most robust protections available on the planet. We are very proud of that fact.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Burlington, for doing an excellent job of laying out the criteria under which net benefit is assessed, the specific guidelines that govern evaluations of proposed investments by state-owned enterprises, and the way in which that net benefit test has evolved under the government and been improved under the government. It is important for Canadians to understand that, especially after the very important historic announcement by the Prime Minister on Friday.

I will now take a few minutes to explain the review process under the Investment Canada Act. As part of the review process, the investment review division of Industry Canada consults with various federal government departments that have policy responsibility for the industrial sector involved in a proposed acquisition. It also consults with the Competition Bureau and with all the provinces and territories in which the Canadian business has substantial activities or assets.

We should not underestimate the importance of these consultations. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster keeps challenging us publicly to consult with Canadians. He clearly has no familiarity with the existing mechanism for consultation that the Investment Canada Act provides for. Any person or group who has a view on a specific investment proposal may provide that view in writing to the minister, as provided for in the Guidelines — Administrative Procedures that we have today.

These guidelines state that where unsolicited representations are received that could have an adverse bearing on the determination of net benefit, investors will be advised of the substance of those representations and given ample opportunity to respond to them.

This is very important because we value the principle of fairness. We value the integrity of our consultation process. We want it to deliver a good result for Canadians, a result whereby investments do generate benefit for this country, and that means we need to sequence both the receipt of representations and, where warranted, their publication in a very careful and deliberate way.

Once the consulted parties have provided their input, discussions take place with the investor and legally enforceable undertakings are discussed with the investor.

The investment review division staff also perform an independent analysis of the acquisition in light of the six net benefit factors that are in section 20 of the act, very ably described by my colleague. In performing the review, the minister establishes a baseline against which to review a proposed transaction.

The minister looks at the Canadian business that the investor proposes to acquire and takes into account the business' likely prospects on a stand-alone basis if the investment did not take place. The minister assesses whether the business is a healthy company with good prospects or whether it is in financial distress. Different sectors are moving in different directions in today's economy and this is an important context for any decision.

The minister also takes into account the Canadian business' key strengths, areas requiring improvement and the key business challenges it is facing. The minister also takes into account what the foreign investor brings to the investment, for instance, whether the investor is bringing capital or expertise that is not accessible to the Canadian business.

We need to be clear, as the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was, about the different contexts in which acquisitions takes place: Stelco or Dofasco; the oil sands or some branches of manufacturing; advanced manufacturing or the manufacturing that has not changed since the middle of the last century. These contexts help to determine the calculation that the minister has to make on the basis of consultation and on the basis of the review process that I am describing.

The bottom line is that this review process is rigorous. Where an investment is subject to review, the minister must approve an investor's application for review even before the investor can implement the acquisition. The minister only approves applications where he or she is satisfied, based on the plans, undertakings and other representations, that the investment is likely to be of net benefit.

The investors generally need to provide plans and undertakings to support their view that their investments are likely to be of benefit. In 2011, the investment review division received and processed 634 notifications. As well, the Minister of Industry approved 15 applications for review. All approved investments are subject to monitoring and an evaluation of the implementation of the plans and undertakings of the investors, ordinarily performed a year and a half after the acquisition. The act provides for remedies where the minister is not satisfied that an investor is meeting its obligations.

The decision to take enforcement measures under the act is based on the overall performance of the investor in implementing plans and undertakings, but, obviously, these decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Decisions can, however, include the dramatic step in which the government seeks an order from a Superior Court for the imposition of fines of up to $10,000 per day or the full or partial dissolution of an investment.

With reference to the transactions the minister approved on Friday, the minister stated that the investors satisfied him under the Investment Canada Act and that, under state-owned enterprise guidelines which existed at the time of the review, their proposed transactions are likely to be of net benefit to Canada. In making this determination, the minister carefully considered plans, undertakings and other information submitted by the investors.

The minister also stated that to demonstrate that the transaction is likely to be of net benefit, the investors have made significant commitments to Canada. For instance, with regard to the recent proposed transactions, the investors have provided undertakings on matters such as: governance, including commitments to transparency and disclosure; commercial orientation, including an adherence to Canadian laws and practices, as well as free-market principles; and employment in capital investments, which demonstrate a long-term commitment to the development of the Canadian economy.

Our government has applied the rules responsibly. We have revised the guidelines to ensure a clear and rigorous approach to the new context of state-owned enterprises.

I will note a certain irony in today's debate. The opposition motion before us relates to a resolution of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. We, like the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, are in favour of investment in this country, investment that is of net benefit and creates jobs. Canada has benefited, as of today, from roughly $608 billion of inward investment. That has allowed Canadian companies, on the basis of reciprocity, to undertake upward of $685 billion of investment outwardly in virtually all countries of the world.

What we have not heard from the members opposite and what their motion today disguises is a reaffirmation of what we know to be their policy, that they are opposed to investment, not just the Nexen and Progress deals and not just closer scrutiny of state-owned enterprises, which is what our government is enacting with the decision on Friday and in which a lot of work happened earlier to bring about those decisions. Opposition members are opposed to something much more dramatic, which is free market, private sector investment in this country, which, in a globalized economy, as we know, is the absolute lifeblood of the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity that Canadians want to continue to develop on the basis of which we have achieved our standard of living over centuries.

It is not just a matter of this decade or century that we have depended on investment from outside our borders and on making investments outside our borders for our prosperity, it happened throughout the 20th century. It certainly was a driver of Canada's success in the 19th century and, for centuries before that, Canada has had an open economy based on global markets where, yes, we have had to determine the net benefit to us, what our national interest was, but where we have thought to not only keep our own economy open but be advocates of an open global economy, one where companies owned by private interests, including Canadians and sometimes not including Canadians, are attracted to our shores by a beneficial tax regime, by a commercially-oriented rule of law, by enforcement and implementation of the rules in this country, something this government has taken absolutely seriously starting in 2006. It is in that spirit that Friday's decision was made.

We will continue to refine the rules and guidelines governing Investment Canada under the Investment Canada Act. We have said again and again that we are not prepared to rubber-stamp every investment in this country, those involving state-owned enterprises need particular scrutiny, nor are we willing to put up a wall the way the NDP has said time and again that it would do should the opportunity ever be given to it.

[Committees of the House, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the whole House for the support it has shown for this concurrence motion and for the support that members are showing by being here today for the people of Syria, and to the members opposite for having brought this most important issue before the House on a Friday at a time when there are other issues on the front pages on newspapers.

We need, as Canadians, to be active. We need to be building on the proud legacy of engagement that we have had with the Syrian people, above all on the humanitarian front, but also to be speaking out for the larger issues of international peace and security that are at stake, because 40,000 civilian deaths is beyond comprehension for most of us. They have come quickly. They have come in horrific ways. It has been a civilian toll for the most part. The threat to Syrians has come from the air. It has come from snipers. It has come from bombs. It has come from a government using heavy weapons against its own population. From what we heard in this debate and in committee, the House is of one voice and of one mind in thinking that the despicable strategy of the Syrian government is absolutely reprehensible.

It does not accord with our values. We spoke about those on both sides of the House in question period and in the period for Standing Order 31 statements. We are concerned about the possible use of chemical weapons. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been absolutely forthright on this point, joining his international partners, joining the whole international community, in reaffirming that any kind of use of these weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable. It runs against not only our values but the principles of the United Nations charter.

Every arms control agreement and framework that we hold dear has stood against the use of chemical weapons since at least the First World War. To think that a government could be using such weapons against its own people in 2012 boggles the mind.

It is important for us to be engaged on this issue. It is important for us to be thinking of our friends and allies in this endeavour. Obviously the one NATO nation that has a direct border with Syria is Turkey, and Canada supports the request made by Turkey to NATO for support in the defence of its own border.

NATO is a defensive line. Turkey is looking for support to defend its borders, seeing refugee flows, seeing bombardment coming across its borders, which is obviously targeting refugees who have crossed over in all innocence, trying to save their lives and their families. We stand with Turkey and other regional partners and believe they have the right to defend themselves and their citizens against the reckless Assad regime.

I do not think this is anything other than obvious to us as Canadians, but it may not be obvious to those in Syria who are seeing a distorted picture of events, given the state control of media. We call for calm, and we are calling on the Assad regime to stop drawing in neighbouring countries to this self-inflicted, violent struggle to hold on to power. It is the absolute lowest of the low in terms of the behaviour that reckless states can engage in.

It will end. We are confident that Bashar al-Assad's days are numbered, that he will go, that it is the will of the Syrian people that he go, and obviously the international community is more and more united on this point. The sooner that happens the better for Syrians, for the neighbourhood and for the world.

We are obviously looking to the Syrian opposition to take the lead, to the Syrian National Council, to pull those elements opposed to President Assad together. We have been encouraging the Syrian opposition to come together and the Government of Canada has been very clear on this point.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has played an active role in encouraging those groups to take that action. We congratulate them on the recent announcement that they made, which is a major step forward. However, to be successful, any opposition has to demonstrate that they have the support of the religious minorities. This is a fundamental issue for this government and for Canadians.

We judge our success by the status of our minorities, by the freedom they feel they have. We see that success in other democracies around the world. We encourage it in countries that do not yet have it.

For the Syrian opposition to be successful, it is going to need to be composed of Christians, Kurds, Alawites, Druze and others. We believe in a united opposition to ensure there is a place for all religious minorities in a new Syria.

With that, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Committees of the House, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, all of us on this side thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for his speech. He has raised some moving and very tragic cases of individual suffering. We have seen it on our television screens. We find it reprehensible that air power is being used indiscriminately against Syrian civilians and that a government is literally butchering its own people.

Would the hon. member not agree that beyond the horrors we have seen recently and for too long, the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be intolerable, not just for us in this House and in this country, which has always stood for decency and against the use of weapons of mass destruction, but for the whole world and the international community? It is in light of that terrifying prospect that we all pin very urgent hopes on the work of Special Representative Brahimi to bring the members of the Security Council together to take the actions necessary to prevent this new and dangerous phase from being entered.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record on a number of points. First, the member ought to know that successive former chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have upheld the summary trial system as constitutionally valid, as absolutely required and lawful as part of the military justice system under the Constitution of Canada. They include former Chief Justices Lamer and Dickson, and former Justice LeSage.

Second, our government has done more than any other in history for veterans. It must have been feigned outrage by the member opposite when she complained that nothing was being done on PTSD and mental health. All of the measures we have taken in raising support levels to historic highs have been opposed by the other side.

My question is much more serious. The member implied that we are limiting debate on this issue and are not open to amendments, when all of us on this side have stood and made it clear that the absolute opposite is true. The fact the bill has not gone to committee is only because of the extensive and dilatory debate forced by the other side. Does the member not realize that changes to the summary trial system, modernization of the military justice system, can only move forward if, and only if, the bill moves to committee? Her party's obstinacy in keeping this debate open in the House, when we have heard all of the arguments they have, is what is preventing our country from having the military justice system it deserves.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle a fairly simple question.

Of course, the NDP is complaining about the fact that we have a majority and how we can do whatever we like in the House or in committees. That is not true, but the member has made that complaint. During this debate, we are seeing what happens when the NDP fails to live up to its own responsibilities. The amendments and modernizations in this bill on the military justice system are all waiting for us in committee. We cannot deal with them without going to committee.

Does the member not agree that by prolonging this debate in the House, he is delaying the achievement of his own goals?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we all chose to serve in the House and to pass needed legislation, in this case for the military justice system. I think many Canadians would be shocked to know that we are still debating this bill in the House, a bill that would change a number of minor offences that currently lead to criminal records for service members even after they have left the military for civilian life. We are only delaying the process of seeing that change for the better and a modernized system, in only hearing more and more speeches from the other side.

I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges to please remind his colleagues before they stand to join the debate that these changes would be made if the bill were sent to committee and passed. Members agree with these changes, which would enact almost all of the recommendations of former Chief Justice Lamer. The sooner we move the bill beyond first reading to committee stage and enact this much needed bill on Canadian military justice, the better.

Does he agree that is the right approach?