Debates of Dec. 11th, 2012

Foreign Investment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said on Friday, the Nexen transaction is acceptable. However, increased ownership in the oil sands by foreign governments is not acceptable for the government. We have a balanced position. It is not the position of the former Liberal government that approved every investment, nor is it the position of the NDP that opposes every investment; it is a balanced position that protects the interests of the Canadian economy.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

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

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

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain this once again for the benefit of the NDP leader.

As we said on Friday, we have accepted the Nexen transaction, which does not, in and of itself, raise the spectre of foreign government control of the oil sands. However, we have been very clear that we are concerned about that trend. The trend will not continue and future transactions of that nature are not likely to be approved by this government.

This is the position that markets, Canadian industry and Canadians have widely supported. They support it because they trust the government to take a balanced approach that will both encourage investment and protect Canadians.

National Defence

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

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

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

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government has already announced that it intends to follow a seven-point plan to review all the details of this transaction. This is obviously very important for the future of Canada's military. It is vital that the fighter planes be replaced at the end of this decade. We are working very hard to ensure that the Canadian Forces get the best plane.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, instead of following their seven-point program, the Conservatives should inspire themselves with twelve-point programs and start by admitting they have a problem.

There has been fear-mongering about the F-35s, saying that there would be great losses for Canadian companies and yet this is the only major military procurement in recent history where there are zero guaranteed industrial regional benefits.

Why is the government insisting on proceeding with a company that has not even signed a contract to guarantee industrial regional benefits for Canada? What has been given so far is less than 1%.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken into account the findings of the Auditor General and that is why we are proceeding with a detailed seven step action plan.

In terms of there being no industrial benefits, as I have said before, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts that have been let out to Canadian companies in the development of the F-35 aircraft. In fact, in the greater Montreal area, there is Héroux-Devtek, Pratt & Whitney and Alcoa Howmet all doing work on this very plane.

I suggest the member, during the Christmas break, go and visit some of those workers in his area.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the now inflated price that is being discussed by KPMG and others with respect to the F-35, vastly greater than any price ever admitted to by any member of the front bench of the Conservative Party, I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain to Canadians why he is not going to competitive bid for a replacement for the CF-18s.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would not begin by accepting the preamble of that question. There are a range of issues that have been raised by the Auditor General and others. I believe that the seven step process that has been outlined by the government and by the Minister of Public Works addresses these very issues.

What we want to do obviously is ensure that, for the best price, we get the plane that will fulfill the needs of the Canadian air force, of the Canadian military, when the CF-18 fleet begins to reach the end of its lifespan at the end of this decade.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard government members talk about $9 million and I have even heard them admit to $16 billion. I have heard those two figures admitted to. I have never heard them admit to $20 billion, $26 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion or $46 billion. They have concealed the real costs from Canadians from the beginning. Why no competitive bid?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is always possible to say that something will cost more if one keeps lengthening the time span in which one is doing the analysis. In any event, as we have said before, the Auditor General has raised concerns about the costs and that is why we have asked for a thorough examination of those costs. The government will be reporting on those matters in due course.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just admitted that the government's cost calculations do not reflect the real cost. That is the opinion of the Auditor General and the private sector.

However, the question remains: why is the government replacing the CF-18s without going for the best price and the best value? That is the question. What is the government's response?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not accept the preamble to this question. The Auditor General had doubts about the estimates provided by National Defence. For that reason, we created a panel of experts to examine these costs in detail. Naturally, we will make this information public in the near future.

Foreign Investment

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

Mr. Speaker, CNOOC spilled enormous amounts of oil into the South China Sea and never said anything about this environmental disaster for 30 years.

Despite this rather dismal environmental record, the Minister of Industry seems to believe that we can rely on China to protect Canada's environment.

Can the minister tell us what environmental protection measures are in the agreement signed with CNOOC?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is at it again. On one side of the House, the Liberals would like to accept virtually any investments without examining them very closely, whereas the NDP wants to block everything. These two extremes are at EI ends of the spectrum.

Fortunately, Canadians can rely on a responsible government with a reasonable and balanced approach. That is what people have said. Canada is open to investment, but it is not about to sell out to foreign governments. The reaction of the markets and Canadians in general would appear to support us.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I have properly understood his response, the minister is saying that the information is available but that it is impossible for him to give it to us. He is basically telling us to ask China. That may be his vision of transparent government, but it is not ours.

As we all know, the Conservatives’ record on protecting Canadian jobs when there are foreign takeovers has been disastrous. Just ask the former employees of Stelco.

Could the minister tell us what job protection measures are in the agreement signed with CNOOC?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, again, my colleague knows full well that when the decision was announced, CNOOC had made significant commitments in terms of governance, trade policy, compliance with the law and long-term economic engagements with respect to economic growth and employment.

That is what foreign investments can give us. The NDP's philosophy is to block any type of investment and to be against any form of free trade. It is an irresponsible and imbalanced approach, like the Liberal approach, which would accept anything without any detailed analysis. Ours is a balanced approach—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are still no answers.

The Prime Minister's improvised press conference last Friday demonstrated how the Conservatives are mismanaging foreign investment. The CNOOC takeover approval, coupled with the Canada-China FIPA is a dangerous mixture. CNOOC will have unprecedented rights in Canada and now it is entitled to national treatment, meaning it has carte blanche to expand in Canada, including buying up oil sands leases.

Why is the government trying to cover up the real impact of the Canada-China FIPA? Why is it giving CNOOC special and expanding access to the oil sands?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Once again, the NDP, with its philosophy about blocking everything, is trying to mix up the people.

Regardless of any bilateral agreements that we have, each investor who intends to invest in Canada must be compliant with the Investment Canada Act. It is as simple as that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to have problems explaining this. Perhaps the Prime Minister could give it another try. He failed yesterday.

The doublespeak does not change the fact that the botched $15 billion Nexen decision is more clear evidence of Conservative mismanagement. In fact, Conservative sources are saying that the government sold out on the Canada-China FIPA. Now it has given a blank cheque to CNOOC. Most Canadians and even many Conservatives do not agree with the government on CNOOC.

Why is the government being so incompetent and so irresponsible?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. On the contrary, investors who intend to invest in this country must comply with the Investment Canada Act. It is as simple as that.

Once again the NDP is trying to mix up everything because it has a blocking everything agenda in terms of investments.

We have a balanced approach that is strong and solid. We have clarified the guidelines but once again the NDP does not seem to understand. Fortunately, however, the markets and Canadians get it.

National Defence

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, FIPA is not the only agreement the Conservatives do not seem to understand. Yesterday, the Prime Minister fear-mongered about F-35 related contracts being ripped up. To paraphrase a prominent columnist, this is either culpable incompetence or deliberate misrepresentation.

Denmark, a tier 3 partner just like us, is using an open competition to replace their F-16s. The Dutch, also a JSF partner, are also going through a competitive process in response to their AG's report.

Why are the Conservatives still fear-mongering and misleading Canadians?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, we have set up the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat to ensure that there is maximum transparency and due diligence in the decision leading up to the replacement of our CF-18s. That work also includes the independent oversight of a former Canadian auditor general, Denis Desautels.

At this point, no money has been spent on the purchase of any new aircraft. That will not happen until we get updated cost estimates that have been independently verified and until we do a full options analysis.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have forgotten what this is actually about. It is about getting the right aircraft at the right price with the best industrial benefits.

The Prime Minister reverts too easily to old habits, such as sole source deals behind closed doors. Backroom deals and public misrepresentation seem to be the instincts of the government.

The democratic instinct would be openness, transparency and a real competition to replace the CF-18s. Why not that?