Chris Alexander

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's frustration with the two opposition parties, who are not only embracing the wrong policies—or indeed, in the case of the party in the corner, no policy at all—but talking down the reality of the Canadian economy. The Canadian economy is creating jobs well ahead of the pace of any other advanced economy and has put up better growth numbers than any country in Europe, including Germany, since the start of this recession, indeed since the start of this government.

My puzzlement is unassuaged. I would like to ask the member for Etobicoke Centre what his interpretation is of the NDP's inability to talk about the facts of its platform from 2011. We campaigned on a platform of jobs and growth, and we are delivering it now. The NDP members campaigned on a platform of a $21 billion carbon tax, and for some reason they are not prepared to talk about it today. Why is that?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for some of the candour and flashes of common sense in his speech. He did admit that there are good measures in the bill. We think all the measures are good. They would give Canadians better, more efficient government and above all a better business environment, one that would bring jobs, growth and long-term prosperity to this country. In fact, they are already bringing those things to this country.

I will ask the member about transparency and candour. We campaigned on this platform, in favour of budgets and action plans such as this. We campaigned to focus on the economy, to bring sector-by-sector change, reform and restructuring, to make Canada's economy stronger and to make our business environment the best in the world.

If our eyes have not failed us, the New Democrats campaigned on implementing a $21 billion carbon tax. Will the hon. member, with some of the candour he has shown, stand up and explain to us what that proposal means and why his colleagues on the opposition benches will not talk about it?

[National Defence, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member already knows, Lockheed Martin was competing with another company to develop the F-35. This happened under another government, the Liberal government, and with the oversight of an American government.

Canada's options are being very carefully examined. As I said, the F-35 is just one of the options.

The funding envelope for the acquisition of a replacement aircraft has been frozen. All elements of the seven point action plan will be completed before we make a decision on how to replace the current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. The government's action plan is a comprehensive response to the Auditor General's recommendations and conclusions in chapter 2 of his spring 2012 report.

There has been more progress than hon. members in this House have acknowledged to date and there will continue to be progress, due diligence, transparency and healthy debate in this House before a decision is taken.

[National Defence, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to respond to questions from my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The starting point for our discussion here today is the Auditor General's report released this spring, on April 3, 2012. I would like to talk about the government's strategy for responding to the questions raised by the Auditor General and carrying out such a major project.

If we really want to get the right aircraft to replace the CF-18, I would say first of all that we cannot rely solely on what some American pilot said. There are differences of opinion on the future of these military capabilities, which are very important to us and our allies. We need to have a much broader analysis process. Our government began working on that a few months ago.

By introducing the government's seven-point action plan, we will fulfill and exceed the Auditor General's recommendations. Let us be clear: we have effectively pushed a restart on the replacement of the CF-18s. No decision will be made until the action plan is complete.

This action plan defines how due diligence and transparency will be applied as we move forward with replacing Canada's fighter jets. As part of the action plan, the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat was established. It is a part of Public Works and Government Services Canada. The secretariat has the lead coordinating role as the government moves to replace our aging CF-18 fleet. It will provide the due diligence, oversight and transparency necessary.

There is also a deputy ministers' governance committee overseeing the work of the secretariat. It includes two independent members, Mr. Denis Desautels, a renowned former auditor general, and Dr. Kenneth Norrie.

The secretariat is making great progress in implementing the seven-point action plan. I encourage my parliamentary colleagues, including the hon. member, to consult the secretariat's website, which is updating us all on the work being done at regular intervals.

The evaluation of options to sustain a Canadian Forces fighter capability well into the 21st century is under way and will involve a full evaluation of real choices. This detailed evaluation will provide the best available information about the range of choices that could meet the needs of our men and women in uniform.

This work is being led by National Defence and facilitated by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. It will be subject to approval by the deputy ministers' governance committee and we will report back to Canadians when the evaluation is complete.

The secretariat will commission an independent review of the acquisition process to date. A request for proposal was issued on October 26, 2012 to select a company to conduct this review. The third party will provide us with the lessons learned so that we can look to improve the way we conduct similar acquisitions in the future.

Let us be clear about the objectives of this review. We do not wish to cast aspersions the Auditor General's work.

I would like to repeat that the government has accepted his findings and recommendations, but while this work is under way, other items in the action plan continue to advance, including the annual update, which will be tabled in Parliament relatively soon. The action plan commits the Department of National Defence, through the secretariat, to provide annual updates to Parliament on the costs of the F-35, which is one option for the replacement of Canada's CF-18s. The first update will be tabled shortly and allows for the independent review of the figures in the report.

As part of this annual update, the Treasury Board Secretariat has commissioned the independent review that will help set a consistent life-cycle costing framework to report costing estimates for this project. This will enable National Defence to more effectively report costs to Parliament and the public in the future.

We also commit Industry Canada under the action plan to continue identifying opportunities for Canadian industry to participate in the F-35 joint strike fighter global supply chain, a supply chain and opportunity that has brought enormous benefits already to many Canadian communities.

[Parks Canada, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Western Arctic understands as well as any Canadian that this venture, this investment, this effort to protect and conserve land, habitat and wildlife, is a long-term venture. In order to protect it over the long term, we need to be strong as a country, as do successive governments. One of the elements of strength is the ability to balance a budget, to maintain fiscal sustainability. We will not apologize for our efforts to do things more efficiently in our national parks.

However, we are working with the people of the north and the northern communities, as well as 330 employees across this vast area, of which 35% are self-identifying as aboriginal with roots in those communities, toward a goal we all share, which is to bring Canadians and the wider world to see these treasures and these unique landscapes.

Tourism in Canada generates $72 billion in economic activity per year. Parks Canada is a major stakeholder in the success of that industry over the long term.

[Parks Canada, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Western Arctic is absolutely right. This government does take enormous pride in its record with regard to national parks, particularly in northern Canada. We also take our commitments extremely seriously, especially those we make at election time or before elections. Therefore, I will not dwell on the member for Western Arctic's failure to implement his own commitment to his own constituents with regard to the elimination of the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. He can deal with his own conscience and his own constituents on that point.

However, with regard to parks he is right. Our northern parks contain some of the most inspirational landscapes that we have. They define the essence of this country from the Yukon's Kluane National Park and Reserve to the bison roaming the boreal forest of Wood Buffalo National Park, or to the towering mountains of Auyuittuq in Nunavut, a relatively new creation. Our government will continue to protect these lands for future generations.

We have a special record with regard to national parks in this Conservative party from Banff forward. That is why our 2010-11 Throne Speech was committed to establishing significant new protected areas.

Under the northern strategy and Arctic foreign policy statement, we will designate new national parks in northern Canada, plus a new national marine conservation area in Nunavut's Lancaster Sound. This commitment is best exemplified by our decision to protect the south Nahanni River watershed, which the member mentioned, one of the planet's great rivers.

In 2009, in collaboration with the Dehcho First Nations, our government delivered the sixfold expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. As the member mentioned, at 30,000 square kilometres, it is now Canada's third largest national park.

Just this past summer, our Prime Minister travelled north to announce the creation of the 4,850 square kilometre Naats'ihch'oh National Park Reserve with the Sahtu Dene and Métis people.

In 2006, Parks Canada's protected network covered approximately 277,000 square kilometres. Since then, we have added 50,000 square kilometres of nationally significant lands and waters, an area seven times the size of Lake Ontario.

In addition, we have taken actions that will eventually lead to the protection of another 100,000 square kilometres of natural areas. All told, our government has taken and will continue to take the actions necessary to produce a 53% increase in the size of Parks Canada's protected areas network.

This work to expand our world-class national park system not only protects the environment, it is an important investment in the economic sustainability of northern communities.

Parks Canada is a significant face in 22 communities in Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. With the creation of each new national park and national marine conservation area, that presence grows.

As we work to finalize measures to implement this budget, it will still maintain 330 employees across the north and over 35% of Parks Canada's staff employed in the north self-identify as aboriginal. We will continue to work with northern communities to ensure the economic benefits of new national parks accrue to them and their children.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing the merits of this agreement so clearly to the attention of this House. Panama is both a valued partner of Canada, in and of itself, and also a hub for international trade. We on this side look forward to voting in favour of this agreement.

However, the member mentions the opposition's position on this trade deal, as on so many others. What would the opposition's anti-trade agenda mean for Canada if any government were foolish enough to implement even some of these aspects? It is against trade agreements with the nine countries with which we have negotiated, and with the scores of countries we would like to negotiate with. The opposition would instead like a $21 billion carbon tax.

The Leader of the Opposition, while mentioning the IMF today in favourable terms, does not agree with what the IMF is calling for, which is fiscal consolidation. Deficit reduction is what our government is doing, and the NDP does not want to do it. Does the member—

[Radiocommunication Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for introducing such an important bill.

Bill C-429 aims to improve a situation in a sector that is rapidly expanding across Canada. This sector provides services to all Canadians. All Canadians rely on these services in emergencies, in their daily lives and in meeting their family's needs.

We want to discuss this issue to improve the regulations and legislation in this area. However, for the reasons I will describe, we do not think that this bill achieves the objectives set by the government and by Canadians.

We know this technology has given us a richer experience. It has added value, productivity and pleasure to the lives of Canadians across the board. However, with ever more bandwidth-intensive multimedia applications being developed for mobile uses, with high-speed data being required and with additional radio frequency spectrum becoming available, the pressure for existing towers and existing antennas to support more service than ever and for new towers to be built is obviously without precedent. The restructuring of our economy to reinforce the presence of e-commerce and to allow consumers to conduct ordinary financial transactions on their mobile phones means that we can expect these volumes of data to continue to grow.

Let us not forget the most urgent situations, the most tragic circumstances in which people are now depending on their mobile phones, either as eyewitnesses or as victims of accidents or crimes. Something like one-half of all 911 calls today in Canada are initiated by someone using a mobile phone. Police, firefighters, ambulance operators, air navigators, national defence, all of our first responders know this. They also know that when an accident happens where there are no mobile services, where we do not have a tower or antenna nearby, it is much more difficult for eyewitnesses or those involved to get the action they need.

Unfortunately, in supporting the goal of building new antennas and building a better system across Canada, Bill C-429 does not do the job. It would duplicate existing regulatory requirements. It would impose an additional regulatory and administrative burden on everyone without any discernable benefit. It would add red tape and this is obviously a challenge that our government has spent a lot of time trying to focus on. When government gets in the way of private enterprise, when government makes a sector less efficient or less productive, it affects everyone. It raises the costs of telecommunications and we do not want to allow that to happen any more than it already has.

It would also require that Industry Canada be involved in all cases, even for TV antennas or satellite dishes attached to someone's home, which is not currently the case. We want the industry to manage its own affairs and manage the question of locating antennas and towers as autonomously as possible, obviously with the participation in most cases of municipalities. The bill would add paperwork, literally, and require whole offices to be created in Industry Canada at a time when we do not think that is necessary.

To be clear, there is another issue that Bill C-429 does not address and that is health and safety considerations. Much of the debate that we hear today about mobile devices and mobile communications has to do with the potential impact of all these radio waves on our bodies, particularly on those living near the antennas. That is definitely being studied. It needs attention. It is an object of concern.

However, this bill does not address those issues. They are regulated under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act or Safety Code 6, which are effectively enforced today on all antennas and towers regardless of height or location. This bill does not seek to amend those provisions.

The government's current requirements for the regulation of antenna supporting structures were developed based on the results of extensive national consultation. Public, industry and municipalities were involved across the country and, as I will mention a little later, we are continuing these consultations on issues where we think there is even more room for improvement.

The result of these consultations was a kind of balance: a balance between the needs of Canadian consumers—of course the well-being of Canadians and their ability to use cell phones safely—and the needs of police officers, firefighters and other people who respond to emergencies, solve crises and who rely on these radio-communication and telecommunication services.

This balance is important, and as with so many issues this House has considered, whether it is the Copyright Act or the military justice bill that is still before the House, there are many stakeholders and many interests. We have to strike the right balance to make sure the interests of consumers, industry and safety are kept intact, and indeed advanced.

We think our regulation is now doing that. We think this bill would break that balance. It is not surprising to see a bill like this imposing an additional administrative and regulatory burden, additional costs on Industry Canada, and additional red tape. We have heard that in the opposition members' comments on our budget bills and on many of the bureaucracy-cutting measures that the government has tried to bring in.

The $21 billion carbon tax is probably the most obvious example of this heavy-handed interventionist approach that the NDP has committed to, at least according to their last electoral platform, but there are many other examples.

As for tower sharing, it is obvious.

Our government is in favour of tower sharing. That is why, since 2008, under our government, we have required all companies wanting to erect a new structure to explore the possibility of sharing with other users. They do not have the right to erect new structures if there is no good reason to do so.

These reasons can be related to the maximum capacity of a tower or issues related to technical incompatibility of the proposed shared users. The government has the ability to resolve disputes between operators, and even to say that a reason given for not sharing is inadmissible.

We want to improve that.

That is why, since June 2012, there has been a new consultation process.

We are seeking stakeholder views on proposed changes to the requirements to share towers that would expedite the tower sharing process and further strengthen the effectiveness of that policy.

The vast majority of proponents of new towers follow the requirements to the letter. They examine tower sharing options. In circumstances where it is not possible and it proves necessary to erect a new structure, they have to consult with local stakeholders, including land use authorities and the public. Most importantly, because proponents follow these requirements, the vast majority of the antennas erected each year are developed without the need for direct government intervention.

This is the kind of dynamic that we want to see reinforced. Obviously the Department of Industry investigates to ensure the enforcement of standards for antennas of every height and every type. This has resulted in non-compliant towers being taken down in residential or suburban areas.

In contrast to the above, the bill as proposed would require government's direct and active intervention in over 1,000 antennas erected each year, even for those that are intended for personal use, even if tower sharing arrangements had been considered and even if there are no stakeholder concerns.

It would impose extensive record-keeping and verification procedures. It could create confusion between companies and the municipalities without creating an ability to resolve those disputes.

For this reason we cannot support the bill. We want a Canadian industry that is effective, modern, innovative and low cost. We want one that serves Canadians. We know that there are challenges, especially on the cost front in this country compared to other jurisdictions. The bill will not achieve the goals that Canadians want us to achieve. We think the consultation process in existing legislation is the way to go.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that there is no such North American regime and there never was a policy proposal on this side to create a $21.5 billion carbon tax.

That proposal did not come from this party. That proposal came from his party, and both members who have asked these questions and reminded this House many times over should know that it is not so much the policy move, the policy mistake, that matters, but the cover up that Canadians find particularly off-putting.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before this House is absolutely about fiscal policy, and it is absolutely legitimate for members on this side of the House to draw the contrast between a low tax plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and the electoral platform of the other side, on the basis of which some of them entered the House.

That $21.5 billion carbon tax proposed by his leader, embraced by all of them, expresses that contrast as well as anything else, as does the performance of his leader in debate in the House last week, when he spoke for the better part of an hour without even mentioning the question of public debt.