Thomas Mulcair

[National Defence, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, transparency is woefully lacking in the F-35 file as well. Yesterday, it became evident that the Conservatives are digging in their heels and becoming mired in a public administration fiasco. The way to get the best plane at the best price is to put out a call for tenders. First, the Conservatives must determine what Canada needs—for example, an aircraft than can operate in the Arctic—then, they should award the contract to the lowest qualified bidder.

Will they change their minds, follow basic rules of public administration and tender the contract?

[Foreign Investment, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it was acceptable on Friday, but it was not acceptable on Monday or Tuesday. We must therefore assume that it is only acceptable on Fridays. That must be the definition of "exceptional circumstances": it means on Fridays.

Let us talk about what this House has been asked to do—the government was all for it just yesterday, let us see whether it can remain consistent from Monday to Tuesday—to clarify the definition of net benefit, to include reciprocity, increase transparency, and hold public hearings: yes or no?

[Foreign Investment, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what have the Conservatives done? Their Minister of Natural Resources admits that the Nexen deal would never go through today as it is contrary to the interests of Canada and does not pass the net benefit test for Canada.

How can the Prime Minister look at us today and say that the government has already clarified things, when his Minister of Industry spent yesterday saying that he himself did not even know what "exceptional circumstances" meant? Let us be clear: if amendments need to be made, this is where they are made. They have to take responsibility for their actions!

[Foreign Investment, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of an NDP motion to clarify the rules around foreign takeovers, so this question is quite simple.

Will the Prime Minister now follow through on that vote, respect the will of the House and propose amendments to the act?

[National Defence, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is the biggest procurement contract for the air force since the Second World War. Contrary to every other major military contract where we obtain guarantees for regional economic industrial benefits, there are none here. There are zero dollars, zero cents. The Conservatives can talk all they want about no money spent on acquisitions, but the reality is that this has been a fiasco and a debacle from day one.

Is the government going to call an open, public process for tendering, yes or no?

[National Defence, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps repeating that no money has been spent on acquisition, but several hundred million dollars has been spent on the F-35 fiasco. It is as if it were not real money because the product does not exist yet. The reason that it is such a fiasco is because the Conservatives never defined Canada's needs, they never went to public tender, so there is a basic question of public management involved. Are they going to go to public tender and give it to the lowest conforming bidder, yes or no?

[Foreign Investment, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is clarity, except for the “exceptional circumstances”.

What does that mean? It means they decide what it means on Friday, but that things can be different on Monday, which is not a problem. That is what this government does. This is consummate arrogance.

The public is entitled to be consulted. Under the investment agreement, China would now have a right to purchase shares in anything pertaining to leases on reserves in the Rockies and in western Canada.

They are saying that they can give our natural resources to a foreign power without even listening to the public.

[Foreign Investment, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago Conservatives agreed with us that those rules needed to be clarified and changed, discussed and enacted in Parliament. They no longer need Parliament. The Prime Minister is going to make them up as he goes along.

However, here is the problem. How are foreign companies supposed to know what those rules are? If it was not fair on Friday, how is it fair today? How do you keep making up those rules as you go along? This is Parliament. We make the rules. You enforce them, apply them—

[Foreign Investment, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our society is based on the rule of law. Parliament enacts legislation and the government executive is responsible for enforcing it and applying it equally to everyone.

Last Friday we learned that the Prime Minister did not think he needed Parliament to change the law. In the Nexen case, he said that as long as there were exceptional circumstances, he could continue to approve foreign takeovers even if there was no net benefit to Canada.

When did the Prime Minister decide that he could change the law on his own?

[Public Safety, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is very clear for “that category”, but he does not mention the others.

On one hand, the Conservatives have, we might say, loaded the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee with lobbyists and arms dealers, leaving out the victims and women's groups.

On the other hand, they have systematically ignored recommendations from the police and closed the door on the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, for example.

The result is that firearms control in this country will soon be nothing but symbolic and the public will not be as well protected.

I implore the Prime Minister to not limit the police any further and, however he can, to stop the dismantling of firearms control in Canada.