Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2012

Opposition Motion—Nexen

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member made reference to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. That agency goes back to the Trudeau days of the 1970s and 1980s when it was felt that we needed to be very much aware of foreign investment. Over the years, it has evolved to what we have today and as time progresses there is always a need to improve the system.

One of the most significant concerns we have now is in regard to the whole issue of security. Our intelligence agency CSIS, a world-class organization here in Canada, has raised the issue of security through this particular deal. When an organization of this nature raises a red flag saying that we need to be concerned, it justifies the need to have more public transparency and due diligence on this very important deal. Could the member comment with respect to that?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious. If CSIS is raising warning bells about this deal, it makes us scratch our heads as to why the government does not want to have a public consultation on this issue. We should be very worried, if not scared. If CSIS is saying this will have security issues for our country, we need to ensure that this deal, this takeover, is more transparent and has public consultations.

In 2010, we had a motion that passed unanimously through the House that put forward some guidelines to make the Investment Canada Act stronger, as my colleague mentioned, to evolve and grow. As technology moves forward, so does our legislation need to move forward. We need to ensure that our Investment Canada Act meets those standards.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sudbury, who is very active in his community and has been serving on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for some years.

He said that the NDP is entirely in favour of foreign investments, on condition that they are done properly. He gave two examples. I would like him to say a little more about the consequences foreign takeovers have had for his community, Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for all of her great work on the industry committee as our critic for industry, and for the opportunity for us to work together.

I and my colleague from Nickel Belt and my colleagues from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and Timmins were all affected in northern Ontario by the Investment Canada Act and some of the foreign takeovers. From Xstrata buying out Falconbridge, within a year and a half or two years before the agreement expired, we saw 686 job losses, which dramatically affected my community. We saw the closure of a smelter in Timmins.

Looking at how the Investment Canada Act affects resource-based communities, we see it has detrimental effects when we do not have any type of public consultation and we do not know what the agreements are. That was the problem we had when these businesses were making decisions. When Xstrata made the decision to lay off 686 workers, we did not know what to do in the sense that there was no agreement for us to look at.

That is why today we are calling for transparency, so we know what we are dealing with. When we have no public consultation or transparency, all we are doing is fighting and yelling into the dark and unfortunately that did not do anything for the 686 workers who lost their jobs.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ahuntsic, the Environment; the hon. member for Sudbury, Financial Institutions.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here this afternoon to address this extremely important opposition day motion put forward by the NDP.

It is an important motion for three reasons. First, it calls for public consultations on a specific deal, the Nexen-CNOOC deal, which is under negotiation. Second, it calls for public hearings into foreign ownership in the Canadian energy sector at large. Third, it calls on Canada and the government to clarify the net benefit test in the Investment Canada Act before a decision is made with respect to this specific transaction.

For the record, the Liberal Party will be supporting this motion, but let us just step back for a few minutes and look at how we got to where we are today.

This proposed acquisition has been in the works for a long time. It follows hard on the heels of the proposed potash deal, which raised so many similar concerns and issues. Both Nexen and CNOOC, as parties to this proposed deal, played by the existing rules, even though they knew that changes to the definition of net benefit under the Investment Canada Act were supposedly forthcoming.

In fact, the Prime Minister stood in his place with a number of front-line cabinet ministers two years ago and promised that a major review of what constituted a net benefit to Canada would be undertaken. It was never done, even in the full knowledge that this and other deals were in full negotiation.

My colleague, the member for Halifax West, our Liberal industry critic, brought a motion to the industry committee almost nine months ago. Let me read it. It is simple and it is direct. He proposed that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology undertake a study of the Investment Canada Act and present a report to the House.

It turns out the committee rightly decided to pursue the study, but we do not really know what was said. Once again, the deliberations were held in camera, behind closed doors. This is a neat little trick pulled by the Conservatives across all committees to censor access to information on a very regular basis.

Since then, nothing. Did the government recall the committee over the summer months to take a crack at the study? No. Did it produce a comparative study of what other countries who have tackled these issues have done? No. Did it identify and make public the salient questions to be addressed beyond the six factors to be taken into account under section 20 of the Investment Canada Act? Absolutely not; so here we are.

Shareholders and the boards of directors of both companies involved have approved the deal. They believe their interests are best served. That is fine. That is as it should be in the free market. However, what we are talking about is Canadian interests, not shareholder interests exclusively.

It is at once the irresponsibility and the incompetence of the Conservative regime that has led us to this point. It is irresponsible and incompetent in the fact that the net benefit test has not been dealt with. It is irresponsible and incompetent in the fact that it has been dispatching the Prime Minister and ministers all over the world to drum up investments from countries such as China in full knowledge that proposed deals like the Nexen one, or any of the several other deals now being worked on in the oil patch, would be highly controversial. It is irresponsible and incompetent in its refusal to answer the questions that Liberals have raised for weeks, either because the Conservatives are afraid to admit they do not have the answers or they are afraid to tell Canadians the truth.

The truth is that Canadians do not have confidence that our interests are being addressed and protected. They have serious concerns and are eager to learn more about this specific deal, its ramifications and its long-term effects on one of our most important natural resource sectors.

The Conservative government promised to revisit the concept of “net benefit to Canada” in the context of foreign takeovers after the rejection of the offer for PotashCorp in October 2010. Because of its inaction, Canada is now facing a wave of foreign takeovers and the rules have not been clarified.

We understand that it is necessary for the government to retain some flexibility to exercise its discretion, since no two deals are identical, but we also believe that foreign takeovers must be done transparently and that Canadians must be informed about the guarantees involved and the reasons a transaction is deemed a net benefit to Canadians.

Let us be very clear: the Liberals are in favour of foreign investment but, since 2006—and especially since 2010—we have been calling for more transparency in foreign takeovers.

The government is not able to provide this transparency and not able to dispel the impression that the process is based on purely political considerations. For the good of our economy and future foreign investments, the rules must be clear.

As I said, the legislation must provide some degree of flexibility because no two deals are the same. Very important questions loom large and need to be answered in order for Canadians to understand what guarantees might be given and why a transaction is deemed of net benefit to Canada.

First, because we have no national energy strategy in this country, as called for by Alberta's premier and by our party for over six years, where does this and other transactions fit into our energy future? Where does it fit into our climate future?

There is no doubt that case after case with respect to our approach to energy will continue to surface, from Keystone to the northern gateway pipeline, another Conservative fiasco according to Jim Prentice, and now this Nexen deal. The Conservatives are lurching from crisis to crisis instead of defining a national energy strategy that includes changing the Investment Canada Act.

I will take a moment to answer the Prime Minister's question when he responded to Premier Redford by saying that when it came to a national energy strategy he had “no idea what she was talking about”. I will enlighten the Prime Minister and let him know what we are talking about.

This is about building on the early and tentative work by provincial and federal ministers in full respect of provincial jurisdiction. It would encompass the following key elements: regulatory reform; energy efficiency; energy information; markets; international trade; smart grid technology; reliability of our electricity system; building codes; building standards; and transportation efficiency.

Furthermore, we should be conducting a full and transparent analysis of federal and provincial programs and fiscal incentives and disincentives applicable specifically to the energy sector in all of its forms: fossil fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear, with a view to facilitating Canada's transition to a low carbon future. That is what the race is all about in the global marketplace.

However, more questions need to be raised. In the energy sector, what should the maximum ownership limits be set at, 49% or no limits? If a company commits to keeping its head office in Canada, what if it does not? Similarly, CNOOC is committing to keep all 3,000 Nexen jobs and its current management team. What if it does not? How are these commitments enforceable? When shall we demand that Canadians be on the board of directors and how many? What about Canadians on the boards of the foreign companies that are targeting Canadian companies?

When we hear about the national security interests raised recently by CSIS, when do these trump a potential deal? What exactly are national security interests? Are they related to information technology? Are they related to trade secrets? Are they related to intellectual property and patents? These things need to be better defined.

How do we treat state owned enterprises versus privately held or publicly traded companies? Should we be factoring in human rights considerations in the country from whence the acquiring company is coming?

What if Canadians have invested in a Canadian enterprise through government support? This might be from direct financial support in the form of programming assistance or it might be fiscal assistance in, for example, the writing off of assets over a shorter period of time but that is an investment made by the Canadian taxpayer in a Canadian company. However, if a company has been supported by Canadian taxpayers in one of these two forms, how should we see that investment in terms of the Canadian people? Should the Canadian taxpayers be indemnified? Should we be asking that Canadian taxpayers get some of their money back?

Another question that this transaction raises, which ought to have been addressed in committee months if not years ago by the government working with all parties, is whether foreign ownership limits by companies or sectors be brought in.

Some estimates show that today in Canada two-thirds of oil sands production is already owned by foreign companies based on shareholders. Should that be a factor? Should that be allowed to continue? Is two-thirds too high, just right or too low? None of this has been subjected to what I would call the light of evidence and analysis in a good working place like, for example, the industry committee.

Another important question that Canadians are asking about this transaction is whether can Canadians invest in the country where the buyer comes from? If not, what should we be looking to ask for? What should we be looking to leverage from that country? For example, some have said in this case that Canada ought to be demanding better access to the financial services sector so that Canadian banks, for example, can expand their operations in what is clearly a huge market.

I have another question. Will there be full compliance with Canadian labour and environmental laws? What conditions should be met with respect to enhancing community and social commitments?

It is clear that the issue of enforceability weaves its way through each and every one of those questions. Those questions are fundamental to our jobs, innovation, technologies, patents and intellectual property. They are fundamental to the deployment of Canadian capital, to growing and maintaining our expertise in our trades, in our management and, yes, even in our ownership. Those questions are also fundamental to whether Canada's companies will compete in global markets. However, all those questions have not seen the light of day despite the promise made by the government.

Now we find ourselves in a situation where Canada is being squeezed. Actually, the Prime Minister and his ministers are being squeezed because they have gone all over the world telling people that we are open for business. They have said, “come one, come all, everything is for sale at the highest price”. However, we now face a situation where it is going into the secrecy of cabinet, where the net benefit test is not working as it is presently construed under the act, and we are in a situation now where Canada is vulnerable.

I would suggest that all parties come together in the industry committee, support my colleague's motion for a major study on this question and come back with enlightened information for all parliamentarians to learn from so that we can set the right net benefit test for Canadians going forward.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are calling for more transparency in this matter. We also know that the act definitely does not exclude public consultations.

Can the hon. member tell us why it would not be more relevant and politically appealing to hold such public consultations?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my NDP colleague that the institution called the House of Commons spends almost $500 million a year—that is $500 million.

In my opinion, the work that must be done on this should be done in the Standing Committee on Industry. We have already invested in the committee, in its members and staff, and everything is in place. As for the question of expressing the points of view of Canadian society, I think that can be done in the committee. Instead of holding consultations outside the House, we could easily invite people to come here, or use computers and consult people on the Internet, perhaps. We could save taxpayers' money and do what needs to be done.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of excellent points but I want to elaborate on one in particular. What is in it for Canadian business if we pursue and go forward with this deal?

The member mentioned how there would be potential possibilities for the banking sector with respect to increased trade with China. However, Jeffrey Simpson raised the concern of reciprocity. He said that to really judge this deal we should look at it in reverse. If this were a Canadian company trying to embark on a deal like this within China would this deal actually go ahead? I think there is one answer to that, which is that it would never happen.

Does my colleague agree that there needs to be some kind of benefit for Canadian business? What sectors of Canadian business would benefit from increased trade with China?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the odds are not quite even when it comes to this kind of acquisition and looking for reciprocity with the Chinese authorities.

I believe that China is a state in full transition. It has come a million miles in the last two decades and is making progress as we speak. It is struggling under the weight of a country that has 400 million to 500 million people living on approximately $8 a day. So, it has its internal challenges.

I do think there is a lot of possibility here for negotiation between Canada and China. However, I do not want to single out China. I am sure my colleague does not want to either. There are many countries that will be looking very closely at Canada's natural resource sector and, for that matter, at Canada's water resources going forward. How we treat each and every one of these applications is what is really at question here.

We need to ensure that this will be of benefit to Canadians, Canadian shareholders, Canadian companies but Canadians writ large and Canadian jobs in particular. We need to be vigilant that the jobs are here. There are enough jobs moving offshore from North America into southeast Asia right now.

My view is that the financial services sector is one possibility, the manufacturing sector is a second, the tourism sector is yet a third and there are others. This is exactly what we should be examining in detail in committee.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa South for his excellent speech. I must say that it raised a lot of questions.

My question for the member has to do with the Investment Canada Act. It has been around since 1985. We are familiar with it and no major changes have been made to it.

Could the member explain why the Liberal government did not implement public hearings to improve this bill, which seems to have some serious flaws?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we could spend our time going over what happened 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. But instead, I would rather deal with the issue before us today. How can we achieve progress for Canadians in this area? For example, where are we generally headed as a country in the energy sector?

That is why in my speech I highlighted the need to create both a national energy strategy and a real national climate change strategy. The two are closely related. You cannot have one without the other.

So for me, the real issue is not about looking to the past, but about looking to the future. As parliamentarians, how will we go about improving the situation in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Ottawa South for a very cogent presentation on the number of issues that we are looking at. I am surprised I have not heard anyone in the House today give us the words of the CEO of CNOOC so we know what kind of people will be taking over Nexen.

The CEO of CNOOC, Wang Yilin, is quoted in the August 29 Wall Street Journal as referring to his offshore resources as “our national territory and a strategic weapon”. I know CSIS is concerned about national security concerns, yet they do not seem to be troubling the Prime Minister.

I want to emphasize again that if the Canada-China investment treaty goes through, questions such as the one that I heard from the member for Ottawa South will be answered for us.

Article 7 of that treaty says, “A Contracting Party may not require that an enterprise of that Party...appoint individuals of any particular nationality to senior management positions”.

We are discussing something today that is inextricably linked to something we are not discussing, which is the Canada-China investment treaty. I invite my friend's comments on that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the government is proceeding surreptitiously.

These are major changes. These are risky propositions that we have not even had a chance to examine, not only in the House but in committee as well. Canadians have not been engaged. I do not know if the major industrial sectors in our country have been engaged. They may have been. They may not have been. I do not know whether other groups in Canadian society have been asked to comment on the merits of this proposed treaty.

What we are seeing is a kind of underhandedness that is disrespectful of Parliament and disrespectful of Canadians. Under the guise of promoting trade, running around the world and saying that we are the only ones open for business, carries with it a certain amount of risk because it actually weakens Canada's negotiation position, I think, with different foreign entities like China.

The comments that were referred to earlier are precisely the kind of comments we should be examining in committee. In fact, we should be calling for the president and CEO of CNOOC to appear before committee to explain those kind of comments so we have a better understanding of what is at stake.

However, once again, there will be transaction after transaction coming forward. Until we flesh out the net benefit test appropriate for Canadians, we will go from crisis to crisis. There are many deals in the pipeline ready to be negotiated right now in the oil patch, and people are watching very carefully as to how Parliament is going to proceed.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

I am quite pleased to be standing here today to talk about this. I would like to commend the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his role in the natural resources committee when it comes to foreign takeovers or trade deals.

I would also like to thank and congratulate the member for LaSalle—Émard, our industry critic, on the wonderful work she is doing on behalf of her constituents.

I worked in the mines for 34 years and in my last few years the company that I worked for, Inco at the time, was bought out by a foreign company from Brazil. When foreign companies purchase Canadian companies, they not only export our natural resources but we import an attitude. There is an attitude the comes with these foreign companies. It is an attitude that is not just for the Canadian workers and for the communities. I will get to that later, but I wanted to bring it up right now.

As we know, the mineral industry is a boom and bust cycle. It is good for 10 years, then it is down, then it is good. Miners get laid off, miners get hired, communities boom and then there is a downfall.

Last night I went to a mining safety forum. The reason I was there was because two miners in Sudbury were killed, Jordan Fram and Jason Chenier. They were killed by what we call in the mining industry “a run of muck”. For those who do not understand what a run of muck is, it is like a mud slide or an avalanche. It is when water gets into the muck and lets go. It is not stoppable.

I went there last night to hear the speakers. Among the speakers were family members. We want an inquiry into these deaths. That is why I talked about importing an attitude a while ago. Everyone in that mine, including management, knew there was a problem. They knew because they had been sent emails. The place had been barricaded. The barricades were taken down. The member who put up the barricades and sent these emails was one of the miners who was killed. That is very unfortunate.

I want to go back to the attitude. After that forum I received an email from Tim. I want to read it so everyone will understand why I am talking about attitude. He says:

Hello Claude thank you for being part of this much needed inquiry. To me it's insane that there were no charges for what happened at Stobie. Yet a man gets fired for getting hit by a loose at Coleman.

A loose is a fall of rock. He goes on to say:

Try to understand he gets fired for not following procedure yet Stobie management disregarded one of the most important procedures in the underground setting. I was recently fired from Vale for putting in a work refusal.

For those who do not know what a work refusal is, it is when a miner finds a situation that is unsafe. The miner can put in a work refusal because he thinks something is unsafe. This guy was fired because of that.

He further states:

I will now have to go to arbitration which will take a year or two. I can't believe the fear the men and women are working in. It is one thing to talk about at the meeting but to live it every day is very sad and frustrating I was working in disbelief every day. I will give you one example but there are many. One of my fellow miners broke his ribs at work and did not report it because of the fear of discipline.

That is why I was talking about attitude. We give these companies the right to invest in Canada, but they bring with them an attitude that is un-Canadian.

I want to quote a good friend of mine, the international president of the United Steelworkers, Leo Gerard, a former Sudbury native, on the value of good-paying jobs. He states:

Virtually 90% of wages and benefits earned by our members in the Vale Inco mines, plants and smelter have been spent in Greater Sudbury. The $190 million paid out to workers in nickel bonus, which over the years equates to slightly more 1% of company profits, has found its way into every nook and cranny of Sudbury and area businesses, services and charities. Home renovations and construction, autos and trucks, boats and ATVs, department and grocery stores, men's, ladies' and children's wear stores, restaurants and theatres, corner stores and bakeries, yard sales and bingo halls, all businesses and many charities shared in the wealth and prosperity of unions' collective bargaining.

This is something that foreign companies do not understand. They try to import, along with their attitude, wages and labour practices, standards from other countries that are well below the Canadian standard. The Conservative government also does not understand economics 101, that good-paying union jobs in a town feed and grow our local and national economies.

Some takeovers are good, some are bad, some are ugly. I have a list of the good things, but it is short.

In Sudbury, these companies have donated to charity and invested significantly in clean air technologies. We all know that in order to grow, Canada needs foreign investment, there is no disputing that, and we know that Canada was built on trade and foreign investment. Foreign investment can play a positive role in building our country as long as it is done right.

Now let me speak about the bad and the ugly. We lose when we sacrifice control. I will not be able to get through my whole speech, so I will jump to the last page.

The bottom line on foreign takeovers has to be Canada, not another country. The bottom line has to be our workers, communities and local economies, not a foreign corporation taking as many resources out of the ground or our water in as fast a time as possible. The bottom line has to be a Government of Canada that represents Canada and Canadians and does not only shrug about globalization and the new economy. The bottom line has to be accountability, transparency and everyone knowing the promises made to win government approval, because promises made must be promises kept.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, although the Liberal Party does support the opposition motion and sees its merits and believes that more due diligence is needed on the issue, including transparency and so forth, I am not quite sure what the NDP's position is on the issue at hand. The Calgary Herald says:

The Conservative government will commit treason if it approves a $15.1-billion bid by China’s CNOOC Ltd to buy Calgary-based Nexen Inc., NDP critic Pat Martin said on Tuesday.

What is the NDP's official position on this bid? Does it believe that the government would engaging in treason as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre has suggested, or is the member of Parliament wrong and the NDP members have an open mind about this going before the public in the hope there will be more transparency on the issue?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for anyone else. I think the government would be making a serious mistake if this issue were not brought to the industry committee. It would be a serious mistake not to follow through on some of the promises the government has made. I will quote the Hon. Jack Layton who, on February 15, 2011 asked the following question in the House:

Will the Prime Minister finally change the Investment Canada Act to protect taxpayers and workers?

He received two answers, including the following from the Prime Minister:

The leader of the NDP raises questions about the act and whether it should be reviewed. While I do not agree with all things in the NDP motion, the act should be reviewed.

A similar question was asked of the Minister of Industry at the time, who said this:

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and I have both said, it is important to make changes to the Investment Canada Act. It is important to have greater transparency and more information for Canadians. We agree with the NDP.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at this deal we recognize that the business sector and Canadian workers and communities need some certainty when it comes to foreign takeovers. In spite of previous promises to clarify the net benefit test and make the review process more transparent, where have the Conservatives been? They have been on the side of secrecy and not transparency.

On a flight last week a corporate lawyer who was sitting beside me told me that the problem was that the Investment Canada Act was not clear and that lawyers needed to know what the true definition of net benefit was, so that they could work with their partners better to see if a deal was worth going for.

The member mentioned why the issue needs to go to committee, but does the member not agree that there need to be public hearings to allow this lawyer and businesses a better say as to what should be in the Investment Canada Act and how it could maybe be changed to make sure that their business partners are on the right track?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question by probably the hardest working member in the House. She certainly serves her constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing well. I agree with what she said: We need public hearings and we need to change the act.

The Conservatives agreed with Jack Layton on the need for more transparency and that we have to make the act benefit Canadian companies, workers, and communities.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is still a target of criticism in Canada. The government has been avoiding a definition of what it means by “net benefit” for two years now. Now, we have the opportunity to rectify the problem.

The government ought not to come to a decision on the $15.1 billion acquisition proposal submitted by CNOOC without consulting the public. The current decision-making process is not transparent enough and it is open to political pressure. Canadians need to trust this decision-making process, but all they see is people making things up as they go along.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the current Minister of Industry, felt that our suggestion that Canadians be consulted would deter foreign investors. I would argue, however, that it is the ambiguity of the “net benefit” concept and this government’s inaction that have caused investor uncertainty to increase. Open and transparent debate would provide investors with the confidence they need. Once the term “net benefit” to Canada is properly defined, investors will know how to proceed. They will know where they can invest.

Today, investors and Canadians alike are in the dark. Open and transparent debate is a key pillar of democracy. Debate and the right to freedom of expression are essential values in our political system.

I would therefore like to ask the following questions. Why is the government not consulting Canadians about the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC? Is the government afraid of hearing what Canadians have to say? Does the government believe that Canadians do not share its foreign investment priorities? Whether we are talking about the Northern Gateway oil pipeline or the drastic changes made in the last budget, Bill C-38, this government does not appear to want to consult the people in any way. This is probably because they know that Canadians will oppose the Conservatives' plans.

And yet, a responsible and democratic government cannot refuse to consult simply because it is afraid of what the people might say. Public consultation is a two-way relationship in which Canadians give information to the Canadian government. Public consultation is an essential component of our democratic system. It is a tool for expressing our fundamental rights. A democratic and open government must actively and genuinely engage the people in decision-making processes. Canadians want to be better informed. They want to be consulted and in particular, they want to play a role in processes that affect the country’s economy and their quality of life.

Not only does the government not want to consult the public, but it appears to be turning a blind eye to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the government agency known as CSIS, whose experts warned us last week that transactions of this kind can represent a national security risk.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service demonstrates in its 2010-11 report that there are legitimate national security threats when foreign firms try to gain control of key sectors of the Canadian economy. CSIS is giving us cause to reflect on this offer.

We need to review the likelihood that the Canadian government will enforce the commitments of a company with the direct political backing of the Chinese government. Under the current act these commitments are not even made public, so how can we have faith that the government will enforce them?

The government has been shamefully neglectful in enforcing previous commitments, and we are losing control of our ability to ensure that foreign companies meet their environmental and employment commitments.

We in the NDP favour free and fair trade, and good investment agreements that advance Canada's place in the world.

We want other countries to realize that if they want to have the privilege of operating in our free and democratic society, they need to uphold values that protect the integrity of the environment, and also recognize that unacceptable employment standards will not be tolerated. The Conservatives do not seem to be able to negotiate these types of treaties, unfortunately.

I would like to talk briefly about the value-added question, as well as the risk to it. I do not understand why the Conservatives are talking down our capacity in this country to create wealth. They are content with our being fourteenth in terms of global competitiveness. The following are the comments of the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca a few months ago at committee. Members might know that Fort McMurray is ground zero of the oil sands. He said:

I'm also glad to hear the NDP is interested in creating more jobs in Canada. Certainly I think that's important, to have value added that actually pays for itself. Here I just want to let the member know that with the glut of refining capacity in the United States right now, it's not a competitive industry so it would be very difficult indeed for a Canadian to make a profit on refining some of the raw materials we do have, because the refining can be done much more cheaply in the south—without government subsidies, of course, which I'm not into.

Can you see how this member and other members of his party talk down the Canadian economy and how their statements mislead us about the direction we have to go as an economy? A driver paying $1.50 a litre for gas does not care about an oil baron's profits. Developing here at home should mean savings at the pump for the consumer. It should mean cheaper energy costs.

The facts have not changed. Exports of unrefined bitumen are increasing. This is a valuable, finite resource and it will be processed in other places, such as China or the United States. CNOOC has not made a commitment to increase or even maintain existing Canadian value-added employment. This acquisition is clearly part of China's downstream development of oil resources, and it will taking activities that could take place here in Canada.

With the members of the government talking down value-added jobs here, it is no wonder they do not want to face Canadians and talk to them.

Canada’s private sector, communities and workers need to feel confident when there are foreign acquisitions. The manner in which the Conservative government has been proceeding lacks transparency and accountability and is creating a feeling of uncertainty.

In 2010, the government clearly promised to reform the Investment Canada Act and to define the criteria for what would constitute a net benefit to Canada. We refuse to accept that this government should be able to decide on the Nexen acquisition by foreign interests without following through on its promise to Canadians.

Once we have together reached a decision, as a free and just society, on what constitutes a net benefit to Canada, investors will have the confidence they need to invest under clear and democratic criteria. Canadians deserve better, and we need public hearings to get answers to the questions that have been raised by this transaction.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed my colleague's speech. I appreciate his commitment to this issue. It is without a doubt something that is very important to all of our constituents, in all regions of Canada. This subject affects everyone.

I find it interesting that the NDP is saying that this is an important matter, that it is crucial.

What I also notice about the New Democrats, whether in regard to electoral reform, or foreign investment in Canada, or trade deals, or tax policy, is that they never actually seem to have a policy. They suggest a process of public consultations and they call on other people to come up with ideas. However, if this is so essential, so critical, so central to Canada's economic well-being, our future, our jobs, and even public safety, as we heard the member for Sudbury say, what is the NDP's actual position?

If it is so critical, other than a process, can the NDP actually put pen to paper and think of a policy, present it in Parliament and act like a government in waiting? What does the NDP actually want Parliament to do, other than to have public hearings?

Could the hon. member enlighten the House about what the NDP actually thinks?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that we in the NDP respect the intelligence of Canadians. We are not afraid to talk to Canadians. We are not afraid to consult experts and to gather their opinions in order to be able to make better decisions, rather than hiding information from Canadians, dismissing expert opinions and going forward in the dark. That is not a responsible way to govern.

It is not in the spirit of responsible government to hide information from Canadians, to not share with them, to not take their opinions and advice, and to not take the advice of experts. This should be discussed primarily at the industry committee, taking into account all the opinions that Canadians and experts in the field might have on this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as debate winds down on this issue, it is important for us to reinforce the Liberal caucus' perspective. We will support the motion because we are concerned about foreign investment and the government's failure to address the many concerns relating to due diligence that many Canadians have in regard to this particular issue.

I want to go back to a question I put to the member's colleague. A very senior member of his caucus, the member for Winnipeg Centre, stated that the Conservative government will commit treason if this deal is approved. What is the New Democratic Party's position? Is the member for Winnipeg Centre wrong in his assertion or is he correct? What is the NDP's position with regard to the agreement itself. Has it predetermined it before it could potentially be more transparent by going public?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Liberal Party has had a change of heart in terms of foreign acquisitions.

The member's memory is quite acute with respect to statements that our members have made. However, his party seems to have collective amnesia about its approach to foreign investment over the past 15 years given that in its 13 years of government there was not one time that it raised objections to any foreign acquisition.

The member for Winnipeg North and the member for Ottawa South have raised their concerns about foreign investment and the parallels that are perhaps linked to foreign investment. The member for Ottawa South mentioned having people running around the world trying to secure trade deals. I remember not that long ago when a certain Prime Minister was walking around the wall of China in his team Canada and Hawaiian shirts trying to secure trade deals as well.

I congratulate the member on his change of heart.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, that last exchange was interesting to listen to. We heard the NDP member talk about how the former Liberal government rubber-stamped every foreign investment transaction that came before it in its 13 very long years in office. On the other extreme end of the spectrum, we have the NDP members who oppose every foreign investment transaction that is ever discussed in the House.

We have these two extremes represented within the opposition parties and then we have the government's position that it will evaluate each and every proposed transaction according to the criteria laid out in the Investment Canada Act to ensure that it is to the net benefit of Canadians.

We have approved some transactions. We have had a few transactions that have not been approved because they were deemed not to be to the net benefit of Canadians. However, the consistent thing this government has always done is evaluate according to the criteria that is laid out very clearly in section 20 of the Investment Canada Act.

It was also interesting to hear the hon. member talk about the industry committee. I have sat on the industry committee since 2008. Now that hon. member was not in the House during the previous Parliament but if he had been maybe he would have known that at that time in committee the government side was outnumbered by the opposition side. We would often see circumstances where the government would propose to move in a certain direction but the NDP and Liberal members would huddle together with members of the Bloc and then decide on a joint strategy as they moved forward. That was the case as we went through our industry committee hearings prior to the election of 2011.

Members might remember that the industry minister at the time had asked the committee to study the Investment Canada Act. The Conservative members moved that but the opposition parties banded together to block it. They decided that they would rather study something that we had already studied for hours and hours, the census, at a time when the census was already rolling out and it was too late to actually do anything about it. However, they decided that was more important to study, as we approached a potential election, than the Investment Canada Act at the time. The Conservative side lost that vote because we did not have the number of members we needed to win it. Those are the facts of what actually happened.

I will now like to focus on the net benefit criteria.

Time and again we hear members of the New Democratic Party stand up and say that there is absolutely no clear criteria to determine net benefit. Well, Canadians can Google the Investment Canada Act.

Interestingly, it is called the Investment Canada Act, but when NDP members put forward a press release about this issue they referred to it as the Canadian investment act. They were in such a hurry to get out there and play the political games on this issue that they could not even get the name of the act right.

In section 20 of the Investment Canada Act, we lay out clearly the criteria for net benefit. It says right here that in determining whether an investment is of net benefit the minister will consider the following factors:

(a) the effect...on the level...of economic activity in Canada...on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts...and services produced in Canada and on exports from Canada;

That is the first of six factors. It continues with:

(b) the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada...;

(c) the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada;

(d) the effect of the investment on competition within any industry...in Canada;

e) the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies...;

(f) the contribution of the investment to Canada’s ability to compete in world markets.

When opposition members stand up and say that there is no criteria for which to evaluate net benefit to Canadians, that is simply false. It is clearly enumerated in section 20 of the Investment Canada Act.

We have also heard opposition members complain about the national security provisions, about transparency and about all sorts of things. The fact is that the government did bring forward changes to the Investment Canada Act to include national security measures through a national security provision. However, when we did that, members of the opposition parties, the NDP in particular, opposed that measure. When we introduced measures to increase transparency and flexibility within the act, the opposition parties consistently opposed those measures every time.

It is somewhat hypocritical for those members to stand up now and complain that the government is not doing enough to change it when the government has taken steps to improve the act time and time again and the opposition parties have time and time again opposed those measures.

At the end of the day, what the debate is about is ideology. We have one extreme end of the spectrum represented by the Liberal Party where it would just rubber-stamp every investment that came before it, which it actually di when it was in power for 13 years. We have another party that simply opposes every foreign investment transaction that comes before it because that is its ideological position on foreign investment.

Our government has actually taken a balanced approach on the issue. We have taken an approach where the minister considers the net benefit to Canada as he considers every individual transaction. I believe that is what Canadians expect of their government and that is what this government will continue to do.