House of Commons Hansard #195 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question but the background to his question is absolutely misleading. Obviously, in terms of the premise of the question to begin with, it is completely false. It is difficult to answer the question when the member is saying that no guidelines were applied.

We know for a fact that there are specific guidelines in the Investment Canada Act right now that sit on six basic factors as listed in section 20 of the act in which the minister administers a net benefit test. They are outlined in the act but the opposition chooses not to recognize or perhaps not even pay attention to them. However, to come into the House and suggest that there were no guidelines or rules in place, and that we had not enhanced them through the 2007 and 2009 amendments, is absolutely erroneous.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member for Brant had to say. Near the end of his remarks he compared this investment agreement to the government's international trade agenda and the deals that it has been making. He said that it was the most intensive trade agenda ever, which is true, but the results on trade are not bearing out a lot of the benefits that Canadians really require.

On the international trade side, we have seen the first trade deficit in 30 years annually since 2009. In 33 of the last 45 months, Canada has had a negative trade deficit.

If that is the record the member is talking about, which is a poor record in terms of results, what does he see in this deal that will be of net benefit to Canada? The Prime Minister's announcement last Friday night and everything we have seen since does not clearly show what he means by net benefit.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's comments but, again, they are not reflective of the global environment in which we live today. Of course we have trade numbers that are affected greatly by our largest trading partner to the south which is going through a downturn like it has never seen before.

The member's comments also surprise me because of his knowledge of the agricultural sector. In my riding of Brant, the agricultural sector has benefited hugely, especially the pork producers. The actual prices of commodities in agriculture have risen largely because of our efforts in developing new markets across the world through our free trade arrangements.

The two propositions by the member need to be in context of the global environment, which, obviously, he is not paying attention to.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Brant this question. How can anyone assess the net benefits of any arrangement under the Investment Canada Act when, in the case of China, there is a pending but not yet ratified investment act, otherwise known as the FIPA? If this is ratified, which I hope it will not be, the equations change quite dramatically in terms of the invested rights in a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

I would like the member's comments.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, when this deal was first considered, there was an existing set of regulations, rules and guidelines. It is called the Investment Canada Act. As I said earlier, the net benefit test is outlined in that act in section 20. I would ask the member to familiarize herself with the act as to how the net benefit test was applied.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Today I rise once again to speak about the Investment Canada Act and once again I am disappointed that I have to rise and speak to the problems that have still not been addressed.

Why am I so disappointed? Two years ago the House unanimously supported an NDP motion calling to improve the Investment Canada Act to make the net benefit test more transparent, to give communities affected by foreign takeovers the chance to have their voices heard. I know that only too well because many of the comments we have heard today from both sides of the House relate to Vale with the takeover of Inco and Xstrata with the takeover of Falconbridge that happened in my riding. None of those voices was heard.

I am also disappointed because if the government had fulfilled its commitment, we would not be debating this issue again, but instead, the Conservatives ignored the legitimate concerns of Canadians. Last Friday's announcement by the Prime Minister makes it all too clear the Investment Canada Act needs to be fixed. Although I am disappointed that we again have to debate this issue, I am a proud member of this party, the only party that puts the interests of Canadians first, especially on this issue.

I feel like I am quoting a Katy Perry song, Last Friday Night. Every time the Conservatives make an announcement relating to the Investment Canada Act, it happens on Friday night. The song talks about doing shots on table tops. I do not know what the Conservatives are doing, but they are making decisions that are affecting Canadians and it is not doing any of them any justice. Inconsistent messaging is coming from the Conservatives.

Nexen and Progress takeovers are both done using existing rules and the Conservatives have all said these existing rules are broken. In the announcement the Prime Minister admitted that the old rules did not work and that moving forward, takeovers by state-owned enterprises would unlikely be approved. If the old rules do not work, why are we approving the sell-off of assets under them? It has been two years since the motion to rewrite them and Conservatives did nothing. The new rules were written in secret by the PMO and still fail Canadians.

There has been no clarification of the net benefit test, no public consultations with impacted Canadians, no mandatory disclosure of guarantees, nothing to approve reciprocity of Canadian investors abroad, no consideration of the strategic importance of an asset and rules still say that the SOEs can buy Canadian assets in exceptional circumstances. What does exceptional circumstances mean? We need that clarified.

We have a broken ICA review process system and a broken promise to fix it. Instead, on a Friday night Conservatives merely tinkered with the process that everyone agreed was broken. In 2010, the Conservative government unanimously supported our motion calling for clearer net benefit tests and a more transparent investment review process, including mandatory public hearings with affected communities, public disclosure of all conditions attached to approval of a takeover along with the enforceable penalties for non-compliance, clarifying that the goal of the act was to encourage foreign investment that would bring new capital in technology and create jobs rather than simply seeking control of strategic Canadian resources.

Both the Prime Minister and then industry minister in the early 2000s promised two years ago to clarify the meaning of net benefit in the act.

I can speak specifically about why we need some clear guidelines when it comes to the Investment Canada Act. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, in 2006 Inco and Falconbridge were both taken over by Vale and Xstrata. When Inco was taken over by Xstrata, there were vague promises of no job losses. There was no way to hold the company to account after the takeover was completed.

For a year, while a strike raged in my community, we on this side stood in the House asked the government to help us clarify what was in the act and understand why so many jobs were lost in our communities when we had a guarantee that there would be no job losses for the first three years. All the job losses happened within that time frame, but the government did nothing. The government said that it could not provide the information as it was confidential. While I respect that it is confidential, it should not be that way. That is why New Democrats have been calling for changes to the Investment Canada Act to make it more transparent, so communities affected by takeovers have the opportunity to hear what the promises and guarantees will be and so members can discuss it and be prepared.

The other side is asking New Democrats to name one thing we support. Essar Steel in Sault Ste. Marie has done a good job of being a foreign company that is investing in its community. We are talking about what is going on with the Investment Canada Act that is broken and that the government is refusing to fix.

There is also the FIPA, the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. Once this comes into effect, it will make the Prime Minister's comments on SOEs taking over Canadian assets moot. The FIPA says that once a Chinese company is established in Canada, it must receive national treatment, meaning it is to be treated the same way that the government treats Canadian companies. This means that the CNOOC Nexen deal will be treated as a domestic firm for further acquisitions. Even limiting protections of the Investment Canada Act will now be lost. All of this is moot. If we are allowing the FIPA to move forward, then who is to say that all of this is going to happen? If the government tries to block CNOOC from further acquisitions, it could face lawsuits in the millions of dollars or billions of dollars filed with secret international tribunals so Canadians will never know the real costs.

Not only does FIPA sell out Canadians but it does so without any reciprocal benefits for Canadian companies that want to purchase Chinese assets. Grandfathers in China's opaque and uncatalogued regulatory rules go into this treaty and the Prime Minister's commitment to ensuring access to China for Canadian investors now rings hollow.

It is not just the NDP that was calling for a lot of these changes to a broken act that needs fixing. We have all talked about the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. We all share the NDP's concern that the rules leave Canadians in the dark. Even foreign investors do not understand how the Conservatives are making their decisions.

We were told of the framework only after submission, and we were quite surprised....We wish we knew what the new framework will be. At this point, the whole industry has no clue.

That was said on November 29 by the chief executive of Petronas.

In summation, the system is a mess. Canadians are in the dark. Foreign investors are in the dark. As the system stands, all the power for deciding if a foreign takeover is approved or not lies in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is not how the system should work in a parliamentary democracy. There should be clear rules that everyone can understand, with benchmarks that we can properly judge every potential acquisition. The NDP can be trusted to put such a system in place. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the government.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Ajax—Pickering Ontario

Conservative

Chris Alexander ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to listen to the member opposite as he tap dances around the truth of the NDP policy, citing statements made by people in Calgary before the Prime Minister's announcement. Of course they wanted to know what the new guidelines would be before. Now they have the guidelines. The markets today are enthusiastic and the response is positive.

I would like to ask the member for Sudbury the same direct question we have all been asking of his colleagues all day. He represents a riding that, through its entire history, has depended on foreign investment to create jobs and growth. The enterprises he has cited are oriented toward export. Inco and Falconbridge would not exist without foreign investment.

Does he acknowledge that foreign investment played an important role in the development of his community, that it needs to be welcomed in our country, especially when it comes from private interests on the free market, that without it he and his party would literally be lowering the standard of living of Canadians and that the NDP policy trends in that direction as it stands now?

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, what baffles me is how they can stand up and spout all this rhetoric, when the member in this case truly does not understand what Sudbury is all about. We had the former minister of industry call Sudbury the valley of death, saying that without Vale's investment, Sudbury would not exist, that there would be no mining. However, at the time we had Canadian investors in Teck Cominco wanting to buy Vale. We also had Phelps Dodge, and there was a huge surge to try to merge Falconbridge and Inco to keep the company and the jobs here in Canada.

Unfortunately, when the members opposite support a broken system and do not support Canadian jobs, this is what we get: decisions made on a Friday night.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, very few people would question the value of foreign investment. Not only do we have thousands who invest here in Canada from abroad, but Canadians also invest in many countries throughout the world. Foreign investment helps our marketplace and we see great value in that. The issue is that there are industries in Canada that the government needs to stand up for and take note of. In doing so we have to ensure that Canadians are served well by any massive investment in any sector or industry in which there might be an interest from the national government's perspective to tread carefully, and the oil sands are a great example of that. All that Canadians want from coast to coast to coast is for the government to be transparent and clear on what the net benefit is for all Canadians.

Is that not too much to ask of the government before agreements are reached?

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member's question and the prefix to it were exactly what we were looking for in Sudbury. When Vale took over Inco and Xstrata took over Falconbridge, what we heard was, “Trust us, guarantees are in place to ensure that your job will be there for at least three years”. However, when 686 jobs were lost before that three-year timeline and jobs were lost at Vale, the community stood up and we stood up in the House and asked, “What are the guarantees? Can we see a copy of them to ensure that if the government did indeed sign them, if the government did indeed put its ink to paper, that it did this on behalf of Sudburians and Canadians?” There was absolutely no way we could find that out at the time.

What we and this motion are really calling for now is transparency, as we have been all along. The Conservatives agreed in 2010 when BHP was trying to buy Potash that the rules are broken. We have rules in place right now, but they are not working. They are not working for transparency. They are not working to ensure that we are giving Canadian communities the jobs they need. This motion would address a broken system.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to speak on this important motion. I would first praise the work of my colleagues from Burnaby—New Westminster and LaSalle—Émard, who have really helped Canadians come to grips with this important issue. I commend them for their excellent work.

I am worried about two things concerning this debate today. The first is how careless the Conservatives are with their promises, which I will point out as I go through my speech today. The second thing is how the Conservatives are abandoning their responsibilities to Canadians. These are two important points that Canadians need to hear about.

I will go over these two points by relating four sub-points. Here I would like to talk about the broken 2010 promise to clarify the Investment Canada Act and the broken promise that the Conservatives made in 2008 to prohibit the export of raw bitumen. I would also like to talk about energy security and how this Nexen takeover would have a real impact on Canadians, including British Columbians in general and my constituents in the riding of Burnaby--Douglas in particular. Finally, I would like to give the House some ideas of how the NDP would really fix this mess.

I will start with the Investment Canada Act. We are worried about how the Nexen deal will really affect Canada. The Conservatives have rubber-stamped the takeover of this significant Canadian oil company by a Chinese state-owned company without any real public consultation whatsoever. It was mostly done behind closed doors, with little facts dribbled out here and there, but there was really nothing significant at all in terms of consultation.

Even the Prime Minister admits that this sort of state takeover of a Canadian energy company is not good for Canada, which really makes one wonder why he approved the deal in the first place.

Looking at the FIPA the government signed with China, once takeovers by Chinese state-owned companies are approved, these companies will be treated like Canadian companies. For example, CNOOC will gain powerful new rights to expand its control of the oil sands, such as buying new oil leases. This will undermine our ability to control the actions of foreign investors in our critical resource sector, and it is a very good reason that we need to clarify the investment act before, not after, approving these massive deals.

In 2010 we put forward a motion in the House calling for a clearer net benefit test and a more transparent investment review process. In 2010 the Conservative government unanimously supported our motion and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry promised to clarify this whole idea of net benefit. A promise was made; a promise was broken. This of course is not the case here today.

The NDP continues to call for mandatory public hearings with affected communities as well as public disclosure of all conditions attached to the approval of a takeover, with enforceable penalties for non-compliance.

The Conservatives must clarify whether the goal of the act is to encourage foreign investment that brings in new capital and technology and creates jobs, or simply to allow foreign state-owned companies to control strategic Canadian resources. That is my first point.

On the second point I am going to refer to a passage out of the 2008 Conservative election platform entitled, “The True North Strong and Free”. In ratifying the CNOOC takeover of Nexen, the Conservatives have broken their 2008 election promise to ban the export of raw bitumen. There is a heading in their platform entitled, “Prohibiting the Export of Raw Bitumen to Higher Polluting Jurisdictions”, followed by text that reads, “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will prevent any company from exporting raw bitumen (unprocessed oil from the oil sands) outside of Canada for upgrading in order to take advantage of lower pollution or greenhouse gas emissions standards elsewhere”.

I would like members to think about the Nexen takeover in this context, which clearly seems to contradict the promise. A promise made; a promise broken.

I really have to ask the Conservative members who were in the House in 2008 whether, when they went door-to-door in their ridings and talked to people through the 2008 election, they looked their constituents in the eyes and said they would protect Canadian interests and the environment. They flip-flopped in a massive way by breaking this specific promise.

I will now move to the idea of energy security. This is probably what a lot of Canadians are thinking about and will be talking about much more in the near future. The Nexen takeover will have real effects on the ground in Canada and British Columbia, including in my riding of Burnaby--Douglas.

At the moment, state owned Chinese companies, such as PetroChina, Sinopec and CNOOC, control more than 7% of oil sands reserves. However, control goes beyond ownership of the oil sands. In fact, many of these companies now own parts of the entire supply chain. For example, Chinese state-owned companies own the bitumen mines, the oil tankers and the refineries, and now they can own the pipelines. Not only that but they can also bring in temporary foreign workers to build these pipelines.

Just to remind the Conservatives, Nexen is one of the firm service shippers for the proposed Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. That means it has a long-term agreement to transfer oil along the pipeline as a firm service shipper. The Conservatives might not know that firm service shippers also have the right to buy equity shares in the pipeline.

The FIPA agreement says that once a Chinese company is established in Canada it must receive “national treatment”, meaning that it is to be treated in the same way that the government treats Canadian companies. This means that a state-owned Chinese company can now buy the entire northern gateway pipeline. They already have 7% ownership of the bitumen mines, and we have already had a Chinese equity bid on the northern gateway pipeline that was later withdrawn. They can buy up the pipeline, have the bitumen mines and have the tankers. Of course, our refineries in Canada are shutting down at a rate of one per year. We used to have 44 oil refineries in Canada; now we have 15. The oil refinery in my riding of Burnaby--Douglas is under threat. In fact I am going in front of the National Energy Board in the spring to try to save that refinery.

It seems like the larger picture is being lost by the Conservatives, and I really think they have to take a step back and see what is happening to the entire oil supply chain in Canada. Chinese state-owned companies own the bitumen mines, they own the oil tankers, they own the refineries, and now they can own pipelines and bring in temporary foreign workers to build these pipelines.

If I turn to my own riding, the number one issue in Burnaby--Douglas is the Kinder Morgan application to build a new Edmonton to Burnaby export only crude pipeline. Nexen has signed a binding 20-year firm service agreement with Kinder Morgan to be a partner on this line. There are no provisions in place to stop Nexen from buying out Kinder Morgan. Therefore, Chinese state-owned companies can not only own the Northern Gateway pipeline but they can also purchase the future Kinder Morgan export pipeline. If this continues we will not own the mines, we will not own the pipelines, we will not own the oil tankers, nor the refineries.

Therefore, we wonder what Canada is getting out of this deal. Since the Conservatives have slashed the corporate tax from 22% to 15%, and companies pay as little as 1% royalty to Alberta to extract bitumen, it really means that Canadians are not getting much out of this at all. It is as if we are just sticking a straw in Alberta and shipping the oil right out to China without any benefit to us at all.

Therefore, what is left for Canada? There is a different vision on this side of the House. Picture this: Canada produces about two million barrels of oil per day and in fact consumes about two million barrels of oil per day, meaning that we could ensure energy security for Canada if we had the political will. We could have a stable domestic source of energy for Canada if we wanted it. However, instead we make Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces import about 85% of the oil they need for transportation and home heating, while exporting unrefined crude abroad from the west.

This really does not make any sense to me. Why are we importing 85% of oil in one half of Canada while exporting oil in the other half of Canada? Why do we not have a made in Canada energy security policy? With minimal effort we could make Canada energy secure.

However, energy security is not a Conservative priority. It is not a Liberal priority. It is our priority.

In conclusion, Conservatives have broken two key promises and abandoned any chance of ensuring energy for Canada in order to allow a communist dictatorship to own our resources. In contrast, we are advancing a number of proposals that we think Canadians support.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the member opposite. I am somewhat confused by what he has to say. First of all, he is a economist on the NDP benches, which has to be confusing to start with.

I am going to start with his last comment on energy security. In my own riding, in our own area, where I and the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale are from, they are looking at turning the pipeline around in terms of the flow. The oil flow now goes from Montreal to Sarnia, for refining. They are looking at turning it around and having oil going in at Sarnia and flowing towards Montreal to be refined there and used.

We are getting push-back from a number of organizations, including our provincial NDP friends. I think they need to get that message out, that we do want energy security. There is opportunity for us here. We all should be on board for that.

My question to the member is this. I know he was not part of the Government of Canada at the time. He had not been elected yet. We had a choice at the industry committee: we could look at the long form census or we could look at the Investment Canada Act. The opposition chose—

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question, and also not much of anything.

I was sitting on the natural resources committee, where we had a clear commitment from the minister to provide a national energy strategy for Canada. There was a clear commitment, a promise, and a promise from Alberta. Then it was dropped.

What we do have are these piecemeal decisions that are made on Friday night without any concern for what is going to happen to Canada in the long term. These members from Ontario should know that they import 85% of their oil from abroad, when we could be using Canadian oil. That is what we should be doing.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I think we might be able to agree that there is a need to make changes to the Investment Canada Act. There is no doubt about that.

Where we might somewhat differ in our opinions is on the role of the Liberal Party of Canada. If we take a look at it from a historical point of view, we had the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It was something Pierre Elliott Trudeau put into place because of the issue of foreign investment.

At the time there was a great deal of criticism in terms of to what degree it was stifling investment coming to Canada. It is important that we recognize that Canadians have been concerned about foreign investment for many years.

At the end of the day, what we need to do is make the amendments to ensure there is going to be more transparency and more of a net benefit for all Canadians when we do have foreign investments. I am wondering if the member would agree with that.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to this seems to be quite confusing, especially when it comes to the energy file.

Some members approve pipelines; some are against it. Some want a national energy strategy; some do not. It will be nice when we finally have a solid answer from that party.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my B.C. colleague and his bringing forward ideas he thinks are important.

There are a couple of errors that I just want to put on the record. First of all, we have seen a decline of refineries in Canada going from 44 down to 17. That is what I hear. The member mentioned 14. Regardless of whether it is 17 or 14, we are now still refining as much as we did when we had the 44 and that is because of changes in technology.

I would just like the member to comment specifically. He says he would like to see the jobs preserved at the Burnaby refinery. To do that, apparently Chevron has said it would need the support of the twinning of the Kinder Morgan project; yet the member is against foreign investment, which would help to put these pipelines forward.

Another question I have is: Why is the NDP always in favour of hypothetical projects that have not yet been proposed, for example a west-east pipeline? However, when other pipelines come forward, the NDP seems to raise the spectre of all sorts of things. When we talk about investing in those things, does the member agree that foreign investment, which can also be in the form of capital from private investment versus state-owned, is in two separate categories? I would like his thoughts on that.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has his facts entirely wrong. The new proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby is an export-only pipeline. It would run bitumen-based crude, as per the proposal, down to the Westridge docks to be put on tankers and shipped out. The local refinery cannot use any of this oil, as it has stated over and over again. In fact, we will probably see it oppose this new expansion.

Right now Kinder Morgan is pinching off our local refineries, so they are not getting enough of the crude oil they need to supply British Columbians with the gas, diesel and jet fuel they need to get on with their everyday business.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, we see that there have been 40 years of public and private investment in shale extraction technology. We know that the Chinese government strategy has been to acquire knowledge from energy companies. Therefore, instead of protecting Canadian innovation, once again the Conservatives have sold us out.

In The Economist we see it is clear that the strategy has been to acquire knowledge, so why do we not promote our own Canadian innovation rather than selling it out?

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is entirely the problem here in Canada. Our productivity and innovation levels are plummeting. The Conservatives seem lost about what to do with it. They have cut money away from the science, technology and R and D budgets.

What will happen is these foreign-owned companies will do all of the research and development abroad, whereas if they were Canadian-owned companies all of the R and D would stay in Canada and we would have Canadian patents and protection of Canadian intellectual property. That is what we should be doing, not just selling it off to a state-owned company in a country that has 100,000 riots a year.

That is a huge problem, and I am opposed to this.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to denounce the Conservatives' irresponsible decisions regarding Nexen.

We are extremely disappointed and shocked by the Conservative government's decision to approve CNOOC's takeover of Nexen—

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. The order was not particularly apparent to the Chair; there was indeed a slot that was hidden. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources should have been recognized, so my apologies to the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. We will go to the hon. parliamentary secretary for this slot and then we will come back as soon as this slot is finished.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre-North, and I am very happy to do that.

There will be nothing hidden about what I have to say today.

I listened with interest to the last speaker, and I have to say that I cannot get over the kind of small-minded, narrow ability that the NDP members have as they view trade and investment. It is actually really embarrassing. The only problem is that, in places where they have been able to apply it, like my home province of Saskatchewan, it has been devastating to the economy. They need do no more than take a look at Saskatchewan and where it sat for decades as they applied their principles. They come with many disguises, but the reality is that they always come back to being anti-trade and anti-development, and we certainly see that here today as well.

I kind of got a kick out of the member opposite saying that Canadians get nothing out of this investment in Alberta. I do not know if he checked the employment figures last week, but I think Alberta is at 4.2% unemployment rate right now, which is basically full employment. There are people across this country who need jobs. Saskatchewan is going to need 90,000 workers here in the next few years.

The suggestion by NDP members that there are no benefits to energy development in western Canada is just absolutely ludicrous. When they did have their chance with the potash industry in Saskatchewan, they did everything they could to destroy it. It took decades for it to recover.

I am glad to be able to be here today to talk about our approach to foreign investment. I want to remind hon. members that there is extreme importance to maintaining a strong focus on the economy. That, of course, is a priority for many of the hard-working Canadians who continue to work, as time goes on. It is also a priority for our government that we create jobs, create growth in this country and develop long-term prosperity for Canadians.

Canadians, we know, are open to investment. They love to have investment in this country. As of 2011, not only did Canadians want investment in this country, but they were very generous with investing around the world as well. This, I assume, is something the NDP would oppose as well.

As of 2011, investment by Canadian firms outside of Canada had reached $685 billion, while foreign investment in Canada amounted to $610 billion. We have a huge involvement in other countries, and other countries come and spend their money in Canada and develop our economy.

This is why we think we need to make a clear distinction between free-market, private investment and entities that are controlled or influenced by foreign governments. We believe that the right kind of inward investment can play a significant role in creating jobs and prosperity for Canadians, particularly when it comes from private investors on free market terms.

We know that all foreign investments are not equal. There are investors from the private sector coming with private money that has been raised on the markets. They have transparency and accountability in their structures. There are also state-owned enterprises, some of which seem to be transparent, but some may not be and may not operate by normal accounting principles. Some may not be served and directed by profit, as the market would expect companies to be. Some are often under the control of political influence.

When it comes to foreign investment and foreign governments, our government is going to make sure that Canada's best interests are protected. As we announced on Friday, foreign government entities will not be permitted to acquire control of a Canadian oil sands business unless there are exceptional circumstances. Outside of the oil sands, there will be strengthened scrutiny of investment proposals. The more control that a foreign government is likely to exercise over a Canadian business, industry or investment, the less likely that transaction would be approved.

Our government has carefully studied the evolution of the economic and security context, to get our investment framework right. The Investment Canada Act has been around since 1985, but until this government took action, it did not contain a mechanism for safeguarding Canada's national security. Recognizing the global security context, we introduced a security review framework in 2009 to ensure that Canada's national security interests could be safeguarded.

Our government has a reputation of welcoming foreign investment, and we will continue to do so when that investment provides a net benefit for Canada and when it does not impair the national security of Canadians.

We will achieve this while ensuring consistency with our international trade commitments and agreements, which once again, NDP members opposed. Without taking the time to even read them, they will stand up and oppose trade agreements, trade commitments and say we should not be part of them. Once again, we need to remind them that we need to be part of this international community.

I want to remind my colleagues the economy is the number one priority for this government. With the economic recovery is still fragile, we remain focused on ensuring that Canada offers the right environment to attract the business investment necessary to create more and better paying jobs, and thereby continuing to improve the living standards of Canadians. Ironically, one of the most effect ways to that end is an action that again has been opposed by the other side of the House, and that is to give those who are creating jobs the means to hire more workers by lowering their taxes, which is something our government has done.

The fact is that we have a strong economic record, one that Canadians can look forward to and trust as we once again face economic headwinds emanating from abroad. It is important to remember that Canada's position is relatively better than many of our peers in the G7, and contrary to what the official opposition may believe, our economic policies to date, carried out through Canada's economic action plan, have worked and placed Canada on the right track. They have provided Canada with an advantage for today, an advantage on which we can capitalize to ensure our prosperity for tomorrow.

That means Canadians can say a lot of things that others cannot about their economy. For instance, we have recovered all of the economic output lost during the recession. We have also regained all of the lost jobs and more. In fact, since July 2009, employment has increased by 883,000 people. We do not hear that from across the way. As well, we are now more than 450,000 jobs above the pre-recession peak, the strongest job growth among G7 countries over the recovery.

Real GDP is now significantly above pre-recession levels. Also, that is the best performance in the G7. In short, Canada has weathered the global economic storm well. I have to say the world has noticed. As OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria observed recently, Canada is well prepared. “You have been better prepared and therefore you’ve weathered the storm a lot better. You are well prepared now. Your fiscal policy, your monetary policy, your financial system [is] in better shape. And therefore, you are doing better in…the world economy”.

While it is gratifying to hear Canada singled out for praise, we also know that we cannot afford to be complacent. Today's advantage will not carry into tomorrow by sheer luck or good intentions. That is especially true in the all too volatile global economy. Therefore, coming from beyond our borders, a number of external threats could have severe consequences on the Canadian economy.

From the ongoing economic turmoil in Europe to the impending fiscal cliff in the United States, the challenges our biggest customers in the global marketplace face are very real and our economy will be impacted, depending on their outcomes. Rest assured our government is cognizant of these challenges. We will prepare accordingly and responsibly to protect Canadians and the Canadian economy.

Preparing for the challenges ahead brings me to another issue I would like to highlight, which is how our government's record of fiscal responsibility has made Canada's economy more resilient and our finances more sustainable. In an area where we see governments crippled by decades of living beyond their means, governments with no viable or realistic plans to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability, our government has followed a very different path. We have made the decisions to ensure Canada's return to balanced budgets and to long-term fiscal sustainability. While these decisions were not easy, they were necessary and they will benefit Canadians far beyond today, our children and our grandchildren.

Though we have taken the necessary action to stimulate the Canadian economy and to protect Canadian jobs during the global economic recession, we have also moved to control spending and to eliminate wasteful expenditures. Indeed, due to our responsible management, government program spending is projected to steadily decline over the next four years as a proportion of our economy to return to pre-recession levels.

We have also taken other concrete actions to make government spending more efficient and sustainable, taken steps to ensure public sector pension plans are broadly consistent with pension products offered by other jurisdictions and in the private sector, and ensured that Canada's social programs remain sustainable over the long term. We have eliminated tax loopholes as well.

Our government remains on track with a balanced approach to attracting foreign investment that benefits Canadians while standing up for our economic and security interests, and with an economic action plan that is working in step with that to deliver jobs and long-term prosperity for deserving, hard-working Canadian families.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech.

I would like to point out that, like the Conservatives, a number of Liberal Party candidates spoke very favourably of CNOOC's takeover of Nexen.

If they truly respect Albertans, why did they support an agreement that the majority of Albertans did not agree with? Why did the Liberals side with the Conservatives and abandon Canadians for the benefit of foreign state-owned corporations?

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada ActBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are on the side of the Conservatives, it is only because they are showing wisdom. That would be why they have joined with us on these issues. It may also be because they realize that on the ground in Alberta people want to see a strong economy. They are not scared of foreign investment in Alberta. They have benefited from it for many decades and they welcome it. The concern for some people has been state-owned enterprises coming in and having an undue influence in the economy.

Our government has dealt directly with that in this decision. These two proposals were determined to be of net benefit to Canada under the previous guidelines and so they have been allowed. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry have been clear that in the future we will continue to protect Canadian interests as our energy development goes forward.