Debates of Dec. 10th, 2012

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you will note that it is an exciting time to be a Liberal here in Canada. New Democrats are following our leadership race as candidates talk about ideas and thoughts and so forth. I applaud and encourage more New Democrats to follow the leadership race in the Liberal Party. I am sure they wait with bated breath, as do many Canadians, as to who will ultimately prevail.

My question is in regard to the need for clarity and transparency. This is something that the Prime Minister talked about. I wonder if the member would be able to provide some clarity and transparency on that issue. Most Canadians would be very interested in hearing that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the act has been in place for years. One thing that is obvious to Canadians is that when the Liberals were in power, they did not bother applying any of the regulations or determinations about foreign investment because they just rubber-stamped every one.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

The member is trying to heckle me from across the way, but he knows that in 13 years they never turned down a single proposal that was made. We can be just as certain that were the NDP to get in power, it would be extremely rare to ever see one approved. We have heard this anti-trade, anti-development rhetoric from them all day. Those of us who come from provinces where the NDP has been in power know the devastating impact and effect that it would have should the NDP ever get the opportunity and ability to make those decisions.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question in the House. I want to assure the member for Winnipeg North that right now, I could not care less about the Liberal Party leadership campaign. What I am interested in is asking the Conservatives a question.

What is the net benefit of this agreement? Could he explain to me the basis of their decision and what will be the net benefit of this purchase, which was approved by the Conservatives?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, western Canada has experienced the net benefits of investment from around the world in our economy for years. As I mentioned, $680 billion of Canadian money is invested around the world. We have about $610 billion of foreign money that has been invested in Canada. Certainly we welcome foreign investment in this country. That is the benefit.

In an economy such as Alberta's with a 4.2% unemployment rate while in other areas the employment rate is much higher, we understand the benefit of investment. We understand the benefit of the energy industry right now and the strength that our natural resources have. There is a reason to look to the rest of the world to invest in our economy.

People right across this country benefit from the strong economy in Alberta. There are many companies in Quebec that are centred there that serve the oil and gas industry. There are many companies in Ontario listed on the TSX that are tied to the success of the energy industry, which takes place in western Canada. This is a national benefit for Canadians, when companies come from around the world to invest in our economy.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour and privilege to rise on this item of debate today because it gives me a chance to talk a bit about my journey as a member of Parliament over the last 18 months with regard to this issue, the overall issue being the development of Canada's great wealth of natural resources in the oil sands in Alberta.

It has been fascinating to listen to the debate on this. When I started in May 2011, one of the first things I was exposed to in debate was the complete, almost ideological opposition to the development of this great wealth of natural resources.

As an Albertan and as someone who represents a core Calgary riding with many constituents who are directly employed by the energy industry, and I think I speak on behalf of many of them, if not all of them, this resource needs to be developed strategically. It needs to be developed with a sense of environmental stewardship. It also needs to be contextualized within the context of how important it is to the economy as a whole, not just to Calgary, not just to Alberta, but to the country as a nation-building resource. We would be hard pressed to find anyone in the House who would disagree with me on that point, which is why it has been so fascinating to listen to the rhetoric from members across the aisle on this file.

One of the first items of debate I had the experience of participating in was the NDP's anti-trade mission to Washington to lobby against certain energy infrastructure projects. I do not think anyone has really talked in detail today about the cost of capital and how much it actually costs to develop the oil sands. In order for major infrastructure projects to go through, investment needs to be made in them. I found it very rich to hear the NDP natural resource critic talk about net benefit to Canada and developing the energy sector when he supported an NDP anti-trade mission that sought to limit market access for Canada's natural resource sector.

Anybody who is involved in the natural resource sector would know that the price differential for our oil is impacted because of access to markets.

We should be proud of our environmentally responsible development of energy infrastructure that provides our energy which is developed in a country that has democratic principles, that is an energy producing nation that actually catalogues and reports on greenhouse gas emissions, has stringent greenhouse gas emission requirements and has a stringent environmental assessment review framework on the front end through development and on the enforcement side of things. This is something we should seek to develop instead of essentially telling other governments not to take our resources.

For the NDP members to take this position and then all of a sudden try to proclaim, as they have on many panels that I have been on, that they are the champions of Calgary, Alberta and Canada's natural resource sector is quite rich.

When we look as well at the long-term investment potential of our natural resource sector, we have to keep in mind the principles of transparency, clarity and predictability and that is really what we tried to get at with the announcement that our government made on Friday.

We understand as a government that we need to have foreign investment in our natural resource sector to ensure that the prosperity that we see out of that sector will continue well into the future. I believe the Prime Minister's quote was “Generations of Canadians have worked to take the government out of private sector industry in Canada.” We should not be seek to have state-owned enterprises now come back into it, that the balance of capital investment into this strategic resource is done in a measured way. However, those rules need to be transparent and predictable and that is exactly what we achieved on Friday.

State-owned enterprise capital is something we need to be very careful about as a nation. The rules that we put in place now provide predictability to the natural resource sector, to the energy sector, by outlining exactly what we need.

The Prime Minister said it in question period today. We talked about exceptional circumstances. He was very clear in saying that we would not put forward majority control of a company that was owned by a state-owned enterprise. That was very clear today.

Going forward, I believe these new rules will be well received by our investment community, by the downtown sector in Calgary, because they provide that clarity on what the rules are.

Moreover, it is important to note today, if it has not been done already, how important this sector is to the Canadian economy. Time after time in the House, I listen to my colleagues opposite absolutely denigrate this sector. This sector produces over 600,000 jobs across the country, not only in my great home province of Alberta but in every province.

It produces billions of dollars of government revenue for the very social programs that we hope to support and see sustained well into the future. Moreover, there is a focus in Canada, across industry, in government and at the provincial level as well, to ensure these resources are developed in the most environmentally responsible way possible.

As a new member of Parliament, it has been somewhat stunning to hear the rhetoric and ideology coming across from my colleagues opposite on this issue. Earlier this year the NDP leader came out and talked about the concept of Dutch disease. He expressed that the natural resource sector and the energy sector was a disease or some sort of blight on the Canadian economy.

If we look at the Statistics Canada numbers with regard to the manufacturing sector in Canada over the last year, I believe we will see good growth and good sustainment of manufacturing jobs. Why? Because Canada is one of the leaders in the G7 with regard to job creation despite a global economy that is still fragile.

A number we like to produce over and over again is that the Canadian economy, since the end of the recession, has created nearly 900,000 net new jobs. We should be very proud of that. However, we should also point to the energy sector's contribution to that. There are so many people across the country who are employed because of the natural resources sector.

Our government will do everything possible to ensure that we are credible regulators within the environment sector and that we have clarity in our investment guidelines. The announcement that we made on Friday to clarify these rules did exactly that.

It talked about the importance of our natural resources sector to the economy. It talked about the fact that our government was the only party right now that stood in the House and talked about balance and about the need to push forward economic growth, while maintaining a strong environmental stewardship program. We are the only party that talks about balance when it comes to setting investment rules that are clear, predictable, timely and easily interpreted by our investment community.

Moreover, we are the one party that has consistently talked about the fact that all sectors of the economy are vital to Canada holding its own as a nation that sits atop of developed countries with regard to job creation and job growth.

The additional transparency that was provided in the ruling on Friday is something that Canadians will look back at 5 or 10 years from now and say that this was really a legacy of the Conservative government and that this was something that would ensure the natural resource sector was developed in a way that would ensure growth and jobs for years to come. Also, that is not this piecemeal, knee-jerk reaction that we hear from the NDP members with their rhetoric.

The NDP natural resources critic, who I have respect for, simply said that the NDP would not approve this deal. There was no rationale, outside of the NDP ideological opposition to trade and growth. It is the same with the Liberal Party. We have talked about the front runners in the Liberal leadership campaign whose approach is to rubber-stamp those deals.

The approach we have come forward with, certainly for the constituents and stakeholders I have talked to over the last 72 hours, is the right one. It is a balanced approach. It is one that is clear. It is one that will ensure we have growth in that sector, but one that is balanced with the knowledge that the involvement of state-owned enterprises is contextualized within a framework that Canadians accept and trust.

We have that balance right here.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment support the CNOOC-Nexen agreement, knowing that CNOOC has a pathetic environmental record. I remind members that in June 2011, two leaks at CNOOC sites polluted over 6,200 square kilometres in Bohai Bay, China. We also know that CNOOC did not disclose the leak until 30 days after it occurred.

I think that these agreements open the door to some rather serious environmental risks. Can the parliamentary secretary respond to that concern?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed that my colleague opposite, who now has a background in the environment file, continues to support the Kyoto protocol. All major emitters came to the table with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and China would not be part of a major binding agreement.

What else is disappointing is that she does not understand the fundamental principles of the Investment Canada Act, as well as the fact that any companies extracting resources in the natural resource sector in our country are subject to some of the strictest environmental controls in the world. When we look at our environmental assessment process, our monitoring process and our enforcement processes, these are records of which we can be proud. That is why the international community looks at Canadian energy as produced in an environmentally responsible way and as a source of energy security.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is fairly simple and straightforward. Could the member provide some clear indication as to what she believes are the net benefits of this agreement?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do so for my Liberal colleague because it gives me an opportunity to remind the Liberal Party how important the energy sector is to the country.

After the comments that were made by the Liberal critic for natural resources, when he told me and my other Alberta colleagues that perhaps we should go home and seek other types of office in the province because of our support for the energy industry as a way to create jobs, perhaps this is a great opportunity to remind him of the net benefit of the energy sector, which provides over 600,000 jobs in the country and billions of dollars of revenue in government coffers and billions of dollars in GDP. The net benefit of the energy sector in Canada is priceless.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answers from the parliamentary secretary and her presentation today was excellent.

I know she talked a lot about the energy piece, but looking at the bigger picture, I think it is surprising to most Canadians, and these statistics from Statistics Canada, that Canada has an incoming foreign investment of almost $608 billion, yet Canadians invest abroad at a rate of $684 billion.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House why foreign investment by Canadians is important to the development of all sectors of our economy?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hard-working colleague for his interest in this important subject.

Canada's investment track record, both in attracting foreign investment recently and in its ability to be liquid enough to invest in key plays across the world, regardless of the sectors, is an indication of the health of the Canadian economy.

The Canadian economy has weathered the economic downturn very well. Our investment track record at home and abroad shows that. It also shows the track record of our government's economic policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary this. Why do we still do not have a definition of “national security” within the Investment Canada Act? It was a specific recommendation of the blue ribbon panel commissioned by the government after the Minmetals issue. The government chose not to define “national security” in the Investment Canada Act when it was amended in 2009.

Will there be a clear definition of “national security” to test against future deals?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite's question gives me an opportunity to remind her that in I believe 2009 it was our government that included natural security in the review process of the Investment Canada Act, an important step in clarifying the rules around foreign investment in our country. That was action on the part of our government.

What is interesting is my colleague opposite has also given me an opportunity to point out that she has consistently opposed trade deals that would see Canada's economy grow in a variety of sectors. Time after time she pushes back against any sort of trade deal, whether it be a trade agreement or clarity around investments. In future, I hope she will change her tune on some of these opportunities for the sake of our country.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the bill denouncing the irresponsible decision by the Conservative government with regard to Nexen.

As my colleagues mentioned earlier today, we are extremely shocked and disappointed by the government's decision to approve the takeover of Nexen by CNOOC without any consultation and without releasing the criteria on which it based its decision. The worst thing is that the announcement was made on Friday evening, almost on the sly, as if the government were ashamed of its decision.

In this regard, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said:

“This is a farce. While Conservatives admit that under the new rules this transaction is not a net benefit to Canadians, they have approved it anyway.”

It is totally illogical. Even though this is happening in Alberta, this issue concerns all of Canada, including Quebec. This is the biggest takeover in Canada by a foreign state-owned corporation in Canada's history and the first in a probable series of similar major acquisitions. Allowing CNOOC to buy Nexen paves the way for all the foreign corporations that are eyeing our most valuable companies.

University of Toronto economist Wendy Dobson mentioned in an article in The Globe and Mail that she thought a tidal wave would be heading out of China in the next decade and she did not think we were ready for it.

In her article, she noted that Chinese firms would be looking to invest more than $1 billion in the coming decade to acquire access to resources and related technology.

In July 2012, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, CNOOC, put in an offer to purchase Nexen, an oil company based in Calgary, for $15 billion.

Before continuing, I would like to mention that I am going to share my time with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

It is important to know that CNOOC is 64% owned by the Chinese government and that a number of the company's key executives, including the president and vice-president, are appointed by the Chinese government. By giving the green light to CNOOC, the Conservative government is making an historic move by allowing the biggest takeover in Canada by a foreign state-owned corporation.

By getting its hands on Nexen, the Chinese government will control the twelfth-largest oil company in Canada, a huge company that has interests in 300,000 acres of oil sands and another 300,000 acres of land that is suitable for shale gas development. Selling Nexen to the Chinese government, as the Conservative government is allowing, means relinquishing the development of 600,000 acres of Canadian land to China. That is twice the size of Hong Kong. In both form and substance, this transaction is appalling.

We lament the fact that the government has approved this gigantic foreign takeover behind closed doors, without consulting or telling us what criteria it has used.

On Sunday morning, the Minister of Industry was still unable to give us any details about the CNOOC-Nexen agreement. He even said he was not allowed to talk publicly about the details of the agreement. Now that is transparency. The person who is in charge of protecting the interests of Canadians cannot even be accountable for his decisions. The purchasers' promises might never be made public or enforced.

Canadians do not understand why the government approved the purchase of Nexen by the Chinese state-owned corporation CNOOC just before admitting that this kind of foreign takeover was bad for Canada.

Making up rules as you go along is no way to manage the economy of a G8 country. We can see very clearly that the government has improvised in this matter. We need clear rules. Both private sector businesses and Canadian companies and workers need certainty regarding foreign acquisitions.

The Conservatives are responsible for this fiasco. Let me point out that, in 2010, they voted in favour of the NDP's motion to amend the Investment Canada Act. If they had kept their promise, we would not be here today.

On Friday, the government also announced so-called new rules to govern this kind of takeover. Once again, those new guidelines appear to have been drafted in secret. In our view, those changes are not enough to guarantee a net benefit in future takeovers. For example, nothing in the new rules clarifies the net benefit test. There are no assurances that public consultations will be held with Canadians, who will have to live with the consequences of those takeovers. There are no assurances of mandatory disclosure of the performance guarantees made by investors or that there will be any transparent and accountable enforcement of the act. There is no improved reciprocity for Canadian investors outside Canada. And there are no assurances that foreign governments' records of interference in the activities of state-owned corporations will be reviewed.

In recent weeks, more than 80,000 Canadians have sent letters and emails to Parliament criticizing the CNOOC proposal. Unlike the government, the NDP has done its homework and consulted people across the country, including in Calgary. We have concluded that this takeover is not in Canada's interests. The sale of Nexen to the state-owned corporation CNOOC raises a lot of concerns. Most Canadians have said they are opposed to it, particularly because of the risk to Canadian jobs and CNOOC's poor human rights and environmental record.

CNOOC and the Chinese government also have a poor human rights record. A project in Burma, for example, sparked controversy when 3,000 hand-dug oil wells and more than 300 acres of agricultural land were unceremoniously confiscated.

As I mentioned earlier, many observers are concerned about CNOOC's environmental practices. Let us not forget that, in June 2011, two spills at CNOOC sites polluted over 6,200 square kilometres of China’s Bohai Bay. CNOOC did not report the incident until 30 days after the fact. In addition, according to the site operator, CNOOC insisted on using an affiliate rather than a clean-up firm that would have responded more quickly. As far as CNOOC is concerned, corporate interests trump environmental ones. By giving CNOOC the green light, the Conservative government is more or less sanctioning CNOOC's poor record on the environmental front.

Last week, when interviewed on Question Period, the Minister of Industry declined to say whether the Canadian government had demanded new environmental guarantees from CNOOC.

Canadians also have good reason to be concerned about the long-term economic ramifications of this deal. In the past, foreign takeovers of Canadian companies have often resulted in massive layoffs. The layoffs at Vale Inco, U. S. Steel/Stelco and Xstrata/Falconbridge are just a few examples that come to mind.

China has tremendous refining capacity, as we know. How many good jobs would be lost if CNOOC-Nexen decided to ship raw bitumen to China for upgrading and refining?

Moreover, the Conservatives have brushed aside the Alberta government's request that 50% of management positions in the company be held by Canadians, that current workforce levels be maintained for at least five years, that plans for a research and development fund be clarified and that priority be given to strengthening commitments to planned capital spending.

Despite the Conservative government's announcement on Friday that it was approving the sale of a sensitive sector of our economy to a foreign government, the NDP's demands have not changed. We want the government to publicly disclose the details of the CNOOC-Nexen deal. Contrary to what the Industry Minister stated last weekend, it is not up to the Chinese government to explain to Canadians whether or not the deal provides any benefit to Canadians.

The NDP also wants Parliament to conduct a full public review of the Investment Canada Act to protect Canadian citizens and investors. For all of these reasons, I wholeheartedly support the NDP's motion and look forward to taking questions from my honourable colleagues.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague noted that the NDP had consulted Calgarians and that they had determined this was not in Canada's best interest. She also spoke about the upgrading and refining capacity. I wonder if she would explain to the House the difference between the upgrading process and the refining process. In terms of her policy framework, how would she advise companies in Calgary to capitalize on such investments?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, and for highlighting an important ideological difference between the Conservatives and the NDP.

The NDP believes that Canada has to keep value-added jobs within its borders rather than exporting them to the United States or China. We believe that these value-added jobs have to stay in the country. We are firmly opposed to our raw resources being shipped elsewhere and then bought back by Canada, since that does not create stable jobs and it impoverishes Canadians.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech.

Today, the Minister of Natural Resources said that the Nexen agreement would not have been approved by the government under the new rules.

This is what I find hard to understand: last Friday, there was a net benefit, a very vague, broad test that allows the government to do what it wants; but the following Monday, the Conservatives have come up with new rules and assigned a new definition to “net benefit”.

If it is not a net benefit, what is it?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, but we are not getting many answers from the government, which is not acting very transparently.

The government likes to brag about job creation figures. However, there are two that it will not mention in this afternoon's debate: the 1,500 jobs lost when two U.S. Steel plants closed when it acquired Stelco, and the 686 jobs eliminated by Xstra when it took over Falconbridge.

The Conservative government has to act much more transparently. Canadians are siding with the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason for the Nexen sale was to bring in capital to develop the resource.

That seems like a good idea, but the problem is that if we sell the resource, it no longer belongs to us. That is problematic. Could the government not have considered using the dormant $500 billion in the accounts of the companies that have benefited from significant tax breaks in recent years? I wonder about that.

That way, the money could have been invested more gradually, through tax credits or some other way. That would have given the labour market in Alberta time to absorb all these investments. Obviously, when they come in with massive amounts of capital, the human resources to handle this development will not be there.

What will the government be facing?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point. The Conservatives keep repeating that the NDP is opposed to all foreign investments, but that is simply not true.

We are in favour of investments that create jobs here in Canada and make it possible to develop new technology. We are opposed to foreign investments that simply allow foreign governments to control more Canadian resources.

That is the difference between the NDP and the Conservatives. Most Canadians agree with the NDP.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, I must tell her that I will have to interrupt her at 6:15 p.m., at the expiry of the time provided for the business of supply.

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster on his motion. I know he has been working hard on this file ever since he was elected to this House.

Today's motion seeks to clarify the net benefit test, include parameters concerning reciprocity, improve the transparency of decisions, and set specific criteria for state-owned companies to meet regarding net benefit requirements for foreign company takeover bids in order to protect the Canadian economy from potential foreign government interference. This is an extremely important motion and it is also very timely.

Individuals or governments or members of Parliament are always defined by their actions, not by their words, because those are two different things. We may say one thing but act quite differently. I would like to summarize the Conservatives' actions on this file and give a little sketch of what they have done.

In 2010, this House unanimously adopted a motion to clarify the definition of “net benefit” but nothing came of it. We can see clearly that there was no action. Earlier this year, Petronas announced its intention to acquire Progress Energy. Once again, the idea of net benefit to Canadians was not clearly defined. Now we have the CNOOC purchase, but there still has been no clear definition of net benefit to Canadians.

On Friday evening, the government approved the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC, a state-owned corporation. The government's lack of action in clarifying the concept of net benefit belied its claim that this would never happen. It was as if we put up a “for sale” sign on our natural resources, something that should not be encouraged.

The Prime Minister himself said that this was not a good deal for Canadians, but he was the one who approved it, just the same.

If they had taken action back in 2010 and defined what constituted a net benefit, they would perhaps have been able to say that it was not a good thing for Canadians, that there was no net benefit for Canadians and that for this reason they were refusing the deal or the offer.

I would like to take a moment to explain the impact and the consequences of their lack of action on this issue. Now there is some uncertainty among investors. Before making a purchase offer, a foreign investor wants to be certain that he knows the rules of the game.

If I am interested in investing in natural resources in Canada, before I go any further, before I get into the process, before I present an offer, I want to know the rules. When I buy a coffee, I know how much it costs; I know how the transaction is going to work. I think it is important and essential for the Canadian economy to have regulations and clear and precise definitions, if we want to encourage investment. This is good for everyone.

There is another consequence. There is a real threat to quality jobs in Canada. In this agreement, there is no guarantee that Canadian jobs will stay in Canada. These are good jobs, worthwhile jobs.

This would not be the first time that jobs are lost when this type of agreement is signed. I can give you some examples. When the Conservatives approved the sale of Falconbridge to Xstrata, 686 jobs were lost. Xstrata guaranteed that there would be no layoffs or job losses for three years, but Xstrata broke its promise. In 2009, two U. S. Steel plants closed down and 1500 jobs were lost. When Inco was taken over by the Brazilian giant Vale, workers had to endure a stormy and protracted strike when the employer tried to cut wages.

We therefore do not have to look very far to find examples of agreements that were not signed and decisions that were not made in the best interests of Canadians because the definition of “net benefit” is unclear.

There is another consequence: there is no reciprocity for Canada.

We do not even know what was negotiated in this agreement given the blatant lack of transparency in this regard. We do not know anything because no one was consulted. When organizations, such as the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, expressed their concerns, they were completely ignored. I looked, but I was unable to find what this agreement does for Canadians, and that causes me a great deal of concern. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved this motion.

I would like to close by saying what we want. Contrary to what the government or the Liberals are saying, we are not against all agreements. We are in favour of agreements that are good for Canada, that will ensure that we have good jobs here and that will provide a guarantee of reciprocity. It is very important that these agreements be reached in a transparent manner.

The NDP thus wants to lower the threshold for investment that must be subject to review to $100 million. This will increase transparency and give us a little bit more power over our natural resources. Our criteria regarding proof of a net benefit for Canada must be more transparent and explicit. We must also hold public hearings and ensure public disclosure and the public implementation of all commitments undertaken by potential investors.

We have a beautiful country and wonderful natural resources that must be protected. We must make decisions in the best interests of Canadians. I am therefore asking everyone to support this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m. and this being the final supply day in the period ending December 10, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?