Debates of Feb. 9th, 2012

Opposition Motion—Investment Canada Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Interesting priorities indeed.

Many Canadians are wondering why the Prime Minister and his government did nothing to strengthen the Investment Canada Act after the attempted foreign takeover of PotashCorp or the TMX Group merger. Afterwards, they promised to hold a meeting, but we are still waiting.

Today's motion calls on the government to table, within 90 days, draft amendments to the Investment Canada Act to ensure that foreign buyers are held to public and enforceable commitments on the net benefit to Canada and on the protection of Canadian jobs. The Liberal Party will vote in favour of the underlying principle of this motion, that is, that the Investment Canada Act must be reviewed in order to provide greater transparency and accountability to Canadians.

The Investment Canada Act as it currently stands does not give Canadians confidence that their best interests will be served. Under the Investment Canada Act, there are no requirements for the federal government to disclose the rationale on the approval or disapproval of the sale, nor are there requirements for public disclosure of the commitments made by companies, such as jobs and investment.

The Liberal Party supports amending the Investment Canada Act to mandate public disclosure of commitments and to strengthen enforcement measures to ensure commitments are adhered to. Loan guarantees, like the previous Liberal government provided to forestry companies, could have helped companies avoid bankruptcy.

The Liberal Party believes that foreign investment is a good thing for Canada's economy. Rather than being a passive observer, the federal government should use its powers in an engaged, confidant and strategic manner, not to put up walls as my colleagues in the NDP always seem to want to do, but to maximize our advantages in the rapidly changing competitive global economy. That is what I talked about earlier. Let us look at what is happening in places like the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India, and China, and how jobs are being created there. Jobs are moving around the world. It is a globally competitive economy, and we cannot ignore that fact.

The Investment Canada Act states in its purpose:

Recognizing that increased capital and technology benefits Canada, and recognizing the importance of protecting national security, the purposes of this act are to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in a manner that encourages investment, economic growth and employment opportunities in Canada and to provide for the review of investments in Canada by non-Canadians that could be injurious to national security.

I see that my time for debate is at an end. I encourage colleagues to vote in favour of this motion.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear my hon. colleague from Halifax speak to this issue. I know my hon. colleague was a cabinet minister in the previous the Liberal government. This is clearly something that he feels very strongly about. He must have had briefings on this when he was in cabinet. Why was it that a Liberal government never undertook this then?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have set out what we are proposing should be the policy. My hon. colleague and the Conservatives generally do not want to accept the fact but, now that they have been in government for six years and even though they talk about this majority stable government, they do not want to accept responsibility for the fact that they are in the government now and that it is time for them to answer for their record and their lack of action.

When there were purchases under the Liberal government, conditions were imposed. What we do not see from the Conservative government is holding companies to account for the kinds of conditions that were imposed.

However, it is time to look forward to say whatever the rules have been, whatever the law has said. Is that not always what this Parliament has a responsibility to do? Is it not the responsibility of any Parliament to not only look ahead and to examine the past, because it is educational for all of us, but also to look at how we use what we have learned from this and go forward and make improvements?

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

Madam Speaker, I asked the same question that I am going to ask the member for Halifax West, of the member for Toronto Centre a few minutes ago who responded with a barrage of personal insults rather than actually dealing with the question, which is really unfortunate. This is a serious subject and I was surprised that the leader of the Liberal Party responded that way.

However, I do respect the member for Halifax West. I know that he responds in the House in a gentlemanly way. However, it does bear on the Liberal Party to explain its position in the 13 years it was in government. Why, over those 13 years, did the Liberals at no point put in place any sort of safeguards or protections for workers, in the case of the Investment Canada Act, the net benefit to Canada?

I have been here since 2004. This was a huge issue when the Liberal Party was in government. There was no oversight and no protection of the public interest. Now—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to give the hon. member for Halifax West the opportunity to respond.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, it really is the same question I heard from the previous speaker from the Conservative side. It seems kind of odd that we would have identical questions and identical approaches in this case from the Conservatives and the NDP.

I appreciate my hon. colleague's kind comments about me personally but for him to say that this is a serious subject and then to pose a question that is founded in partisanship, that is not an indication of taking this debate in a serious way. It is not an indication of approaching this in the kind of non-partisan way that the NDP has wanted to portray itself in the last year or so.

Yes, there were investments in Canada during the time the Liberal government was in office, and before and since. With the improvements in our economy under the Liberal government and the fact that Statistics Canada found that over that period there was a tremendous decrease in poverty because of the steps that were taken, they helped to lead to the economy improving, to jobs being created and to people benefiting in a range of ways. When the government was able to do so, it started to make lots of investments, increasing the important measures that were helping Canadians across the country, as my hon. colleague should know.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Halifax West mentioned how the Prime Minister loved to be around the plant when it suited his political purposes but that when things go wrong the Tories scatter.

I would like to read a quote from an article by Lawrence Martin earlier this week. It reads, “I was talking to a plugged in guy at the finance department the other day and asked him what the Tories have done that is so wonderful. 'The PR', he said”. I would like the member to respond to that.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. We do know that the Conservatives have succeeded extremely well at PR, and particularly in increasing the number of PR staff the Prime Minister has, both in the Prime Minister's Office and in his department, the Privy Council Office. They have 1,500 people in total. This is incredible. This is message control, writ large. It is a whole new level of message control. At a time when we are talking about cutting jobs and saving money, it certainly is not the way to do it.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate for a few moments this morning. First I will thank my colleagues, the mover of this important motion, the member for London—Fanshawe, and the seconder, the member for Beauport—Limoilou. They did a wonderful job introducing this issue in debate today and I thank them very much for their concern. I know their constituents are very thankful that they were elected to this House.

This is a very troubling trend that we have seen in our country. It has been going on now since 2006, for far too many years. Since 2006, we have lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the country. The impact that it has on our economy generally and the effect that is has on the communities in which these jobs were lost is extraordinary.

We heard the member for London--Fanshawe talk about some of her constituents who work at the Caterpillar plant and the impact that it was having. She cited some personal examples of families that were directly affected. She also talked about the United Way organization in her community and how the workers at that facility had raised over $100,000 in support of the United Way, an organization that supports communities and families to keep the wolves away, in large part. They will not now be able to donate the money they were able to raise. That is the kind of impact that these kinds of job losses have on these communities.

Madam Speaker, I was remiss in not saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. Undoubtedly, he will be able to tell us stories about the kind of impact this is having on his community. I look forward to listening to that.

When the member from London—Fanshawe talked about the impact the shut down and loss of so many hundreds of jobs was having on the constituents in her communities, she also presented legislative solutions to the House that could in fact go some distance to prevent this kind of occurrence in the future. That, frankly, is the difference between us in the official opposition and the government, and, for that matter, the third party. We are engaging in debate here on this issue and on trade issues. We are trying to say to the government and other members of the House that when it comes to negotiating trade, that we need to ensure that in our negotiations we do not sell away important jobs in our communities. If we are going to negotiate a trade deal, we are saying that we must ensure that it is to the benefit of our communities and the workers of the companies and organizations from one end of our country to the other. We must not get carried away with putting pen to paper, signing a deal with whomever simply for the sake of saying that we signed another trade deal with x country, and then see tens of thousands, literally hundreds of thousands, of good jobs lost as a result of those kinds of decisions.

When the Minister of Industry stood in his place today and engaged in this debate, he said that this was a tragedy and that he felt bad for the workers and their families. However, did he offer any concrete solutions? Did he say that his government would introduce changes to the legislation to ensure this does not happen again? Did he say that his government would work with its provincial counterparts to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again? Not once did he offer those kinds of changes.

That is why the constituents in my riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and Canadians from one end of the country to the other are asking whose side the government is on.

Caterpillar, a company that has been making extraordinary profits and has taken tax dollars in this country, has moved its operations to the United States. It made a record profit for 2011 of nearly $5 billion, an 83% increase over its 2010 profit. Caterpillar's CEO earned more than $10 million in 2010. We on this side of the House have been saying that, when it comes down to choices, the government chooses the CEOs who are making $10 million. It chooses the corporations that are making billions of dollars in profits.

That is why the government has continued to lower the corporate income tax rate in this country. It is down now to 15%, which is one of the lowest in the G20. This is resulting in billions of dollars being stashed away in the bank account of very profitable corporations. Are these corporations creating jobs? No. It just the opposite.

Caterpillar is an example of a company that took generous tax breaks and it greased the skids as it was moving the equipment and the jobs away from this country. That is wrong.

The minister said another thing that I find quite troubling. He stood up in this place and accused the member for London—Fanshawe and other members of this caucus of playing cheap politics with this issue when we talk about what a devastating impact this decision is having on working people. He calls that cheap politics. When we stand and offer solutions or when we urge the government to use caution when making decisions, the minister calls that cheap politics.

We have seen the colour photo of the Prime Minister four short years ago hanging out of the window of one of the locomotives at that plant pulling down on the air horn with a big smile on his face. He was talking about how, as a result of the tax breaks that his government was affording that company, he was ensuring there would be secure jobs in this country. We know who was playing cheap politics. The cheapness, the bitterness and the meanness of those politics have resulted in the fact that those jobs are now gone.

In the intervention by the leader of the third party earlier, he castigated the members of the NDP by saying that they were against this and against that. However, what he could not do was answer for the record of the Liberal Party when it was in government for 13 years and allowed this very event to happen time and time again. Foreign companies were coming in and not only taking over our Canadian companies and then laying people off but they were taking our intellectual property, taking patents out of this country and moving them somewhere else to the benefit of another country. The Liberals did not do a thing about it.

What we are doing in this debate is saying that what is happening to working people is wrong. It is wrong that we are losing these important manufacturing jobs in this country. It is affecting our economy and we are proposing solutions. We are prepared, as the official opposition, to work with members of the House and, after 2015 as government, to make the kind of changes that will protect and encourage the development of manufacturing jobs in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be incorrect but I am wondering if the House currently has quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

We do.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's great speech and comments, where he touched on the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. In fact, Canada has lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs since the Prime Minister took office in 2006 and 40,000 in the last year or so. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can comment on how the NDP's proposal would differ from what the current government is doing, with our party's approach to good, well-paying manufacturing jobs in this country that we obviously seek and need. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is all about making changes and having legislative instruments available so that we can hold companies accountable and provide transparency to Canadians to understand the plans of foreign companies coming to Canada and what their impacts will be on a community. Moreover, when those companies make decisions, we need to ensure that important intellectual properties are retained and not pirated out of this country, and that communities are not devastated. It is about transparency and accountability. It is the responsibility of the elected government representing the people of this country to protect jobs and communities.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to corporate tax cuts and the approach of the government, if we look at the last 6 of 12 years and the kinds of tax breaks and giveaways for some of the richest corporations in this country, could the hon. member comment on how that approach has been working to sustain manufacturing jobs from the foreign companies coming into this country? When we look at the corporate tax rate as it currently sits at 15%, compared to where it was 6 years ago or even 12 years ago during a previous government, we have seen that rate drop almost in half. What impact has that had on this country and the economic climate?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen what has happened since 2006. As we have seen corporate tax rates go down, not only have we seen the loss of over 400,000 manufacturing jobs in this country but we have also seen a serious loss in general revenue. In consequence the government is now proposing that seniors, maybe not today or tomorrow but the week after that, will have to work an extra two years to be eligible for OAS, and even then there undoubtedly will be a reduction in the amounts they receive. Seniors in this country are going to be asked to make up the revenue lost as a result of these tax breaks for the largest and most profitable corporations in this country.

It is about choices. The government is on the side of big corporations and CEOs. New Democrats are on the side of manufacturing workers, working people, seniors and ordinary Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his good points. I would also like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for her tireless work on this issue and for bringing this motion forward today.

I rise today to speak in support of this opposition day motion. The motion calls on the House to condemn the plant closures of Electro-Motive Diesel in London, Ontario and Papiers White Birch in Quebec City. Together, these two plant closures have resulted in the loss of over 1,000 good quality, family-supporting jobs.

The motion also calls on the government to table within 90 days draft amendments to the Investment Canada Act to ensure that foreign buyers are held to public and enforceable commitments on the net benefit to Canada and on the protection of Canadian jobs. Canada's New Democrats believe it is time that Canada take a strong stand on the issue of foreign investment, in particular to bring clarity to the vague concept of net benefit to Canada.

In the past several months, far too many Canadians have experienced firsthand the consequences of allowing foreign companies to take over Canadian based companies with no strings attached.

When Electro-Motive chose to close its doors, 450 jobs were lost after employees stood up and said no to a 50% wage cut and reduction in benefits. Another 600 jobs were lost when Papiers White Birch shut down its mill in Quebec City after workers refused to accept a 21% wage reduction and cutbacks to their pension plan, which would have seen the value of workers' pensions decrease by 45% to 65%.

Unfortunately, Electro-Motive and White Birch are not the only factory closures in recent months. On February 2, AstraZeneca announced that it would close its pharmaceutical research and development facility in Montreal, with 132 jobs lost. Just days before a dryer manufacturer, Mabe, also based in Montreal, announced it would close its doors with 700 jobs lost by 2014.

Another 750 workers at Rio Tinto Alcan in Alma, Quebec have been locked out since January 1. Moreover, last year, 900 workers at U.S. Steel were locked out for 11 months. Also, 3,000 workers were on strike for over a year at Vale's plant in Sudbury and Port Colbourne in Ontario. Another 200 workers were on strike for over 18 months at Vale's plant in Voisey's Bay, Newfoundland.

Thousands of Canadian workers in the past year have stood up to fight cuts to their salaries and pensions. For many, it meant standing on the picket line day after day for months on end. For some, the consequences meant being thrown out of work just after Christmas.

The federal government seems to be an all-too-willing partner in this race to the bottom for Canadian workers' wages and pensions.

Last year we saw how workers at Canada Post and Air Canada rejected their companies' offers to slash wages and pensions. When the federal government intervened, did it come to the assistance of the thousands of workers who were fighting for improved salaries and pensions? Did it come to the rescue? Who accepted having the next generation of workers as a second tier not deserving the same level of compensation and benefits?

The government took the side of the employers and supported measures to claw back salaries and pensions. It intervened in the collective bargaining process, taking away workers' bargaining rights by mandating the workers back to work.

Members of this place remember all too well the long hours of debate on the government's draconian, heavy-handed back-to-work legislation.

It is clear that the Conservative majority government has been nothing but bad news for Canadian workers. Only Canada's New Democrats have been standing up and fighting against this regression in workers' rights and compensation. If the government's intervention in labour disputes were not bad enough, it has gone so far as to give no-strings-attached tax breaks to companies, which can decide at the drop of a hat to close down operations and move good quality Canadian jobs to other countries.

The Conservative government's job creation strategy is simply not working. While the government prioritizes slashing the corporate tax rate, unemployment levels remain high and investment is lagging. For every percentage point the Conservatives cut the corporate tax rate, the government loses $2 billion in annual revenue. Over the past 12 years, six years under the Conservatives and six under the Liberals, the corporate tax rate has dropped from 28% to 15%, which has meant that some $26 billion in revenue has been lost.

Now the Conservatives are trying to convince Canadians that we can no longer afford to let seniors retire at age 65, that our universal public health care system is unsustainable, that we cannot afford to eradicate poverty among seniors or provide funding for first nations education. This is ridiculous and incredible.

Governance is about priorities and it is clear that the Conservatives' priorities leave far too many Canadians out in the cold. The problem we have seen time and time again is that the rule book is too thin when it comes to the takeover of large companies operating on Canadian soil. The Investment Canada Act in its current form is simply not up to the task of ensuring that Canadian jobs are protected in the case of foreign takeovers. However, I believe there is a willingness among members of the House to make changes to the Investment Canada Act.

In 2010, Canada's New Democrats moved an opposition motion calling on the Government of Canada to take immediate steps to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure that the views of those most directly affected by any takeover would be considered and that any decision on whether a takeover delivered a net benefit to Canada would be transparent. The motion passed unanimously, with the support of the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Liberals.

Today, I hope members of the House will again come together and agree it is time that the process for foreign takeovers be made more public, more transparent and more accountable. This would help Canadians believe that their government is acting in their best interests.

Our proposed changes to the Investment Canada Act are measured and reasonable. We propose reducing the threshold for investments subject to review to $100 million. We propose providing explicit, transparent criteria for the net benefit test to Canada, with an emphasis on the impact of foreign investment on communities, jobs, pensions and new capital investments. We propose requiring public hearings that would allow for community input into decisions on both the assessment of net benefit and the conditions to apply to the investment. We propose ensuring public disclosure and the enforcement of all commitments that are undertaken by potential investors. Furthermore, we believe it is time to examine the current loophole in the act that prevents the act from applying in cases where a foreign company takes over another foreign company operating on Canadian soil.

Since this act came into force in 1985, only two of the 1,500 takeovers have been rejected. Why is this? We do not really know. We do not know how or why the government deemed 99% of takeovers to be of net benefit to Canada. There are no criteria defining what constitutes a net benefit to Canada, nor does the act permit Canadians to know how the government arrives at its decisions on this.

It is time to make this act work for Canadians. Members of the House agreed in 2010 that the act required changes.

Today, Canada's New Democrats are calling on the government to table draft amendments within 90 days. I call on all members of the House to support the need for changes to the Investment Canada Act and to support our call for the government to bring these changes forward in 90 days.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this will be a comment or a question.

This is another example of something that is not working that we absolutely must correct. I do not understand the government. It is very good at encouraging banks and supporting their operations.

If I go to a bank and say that I have some good ideas and I would like to take out a loan with unlimited funds in order to invest in our society and improve it, the bank will say things do not work that way. It would be absolutely right to say so because there are protection mechanisms in place, mechanisms to protect the future. When it comes to corporations, this government looks at nothing, requires nothing and gives them money because they have good intentions. Regardless of what happens, the government will not get its money back. To me, that is absolutely unacceptable.

We saw the same thing when Shell closed its plant in Montreal. That plant was profitable. There was a takeover and now Shell Canada no longer exists in Montreal. I wonder whether my hon. colleague has any comments to add.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it seems that there is one set of rules for individuals and perhaps small businesses. There are many hoops and criteria in front of them if they want access to capital and money to improve their lives. However, there is another set of rules for larger, often highly profitable corporations in the country.

With the motion we have put forward, we are talking about the question of fairness, accountability and transparency. We want to see a clear set of criteria attached when we look at foreign investment in our country. That is only fair. It applies to individuals and small businesses. Why should it not apply to larger corporations?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the intervention of the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

It seems to me that when the government has a choice, it takes a side different from ours. When it came to Air Canada and the dispute with its unions and workers, the government took the side of the company and we took the side of the workers. When it comes to this instance, we have asked the government to step in and hold the company accountable. The government tells us it does not have the tools. Now we are talking about solutions, but the government is not offering any. It does not seem to have the will to do anything other than make excuses.

With regard to this kind of situation, a situation that affects 450 families in London and thousands of families across the country, what does the member think about the prospects of the government actually bringing in changes?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is really at the heart of the motion is the political will to address well-paying Canadian jobs and maintaining that focus in our country. We are looking for what we think are straightforward amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

The will of the government has clearly been shown to be on the side of the employer, for example, in the cases of Air Canada and Canada Post. We are now facing a similar situation in London. There does not seem to be a clear, specific proposal from the government on how we are to make changes.

We are offering specific changes. I outlined them in my speech. We are talking about explicit, transparent criteria, looking at public hearings and public disclosure. These are the kinds of changes that we need to see from the government.

In 2010 we heard that there was agreement. We need to hear what those specifics look like if there is to be any political will gained by Canadians.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the closing of the Electro-Motive Diesel plant in London is a devastating blow to London, particularly to all the employees whose livelihoods have been impacted by this decision.

Ironically, the tragic news came out on the same day and within hours of finding out that London's unemployment rate had taken a dramatic drop. The reality of this situation is quickly settling in for the community, especially for the families and workers involved.

These workers are some of the best in the world and I believe their talents and skills will help them find future employment. Like them, I hope this is in our city of London. I truly ache for those who are now struggling to pay their bills, trying to take care of their kids and lying awake at night wondering where to go next. I will continue to do what I can, to help where I can.

Some will assert that the federal government did not do as much as it could have to save these jobs. I stand honestly before the House today to say that is not the case. The efforts of many parties were not enough in the end.

What has been most notable about this labour dispute in London was the amount of misinformation that was circulated. It was further complicated by many in the media, who continually repeated information without checking the facts. Like the overall situation at Electro-Motive, it was the workers in particular and the community at large that suffered from the constant circulation of misinformation.

It is important that Londoners and Canadians understand the situation more accurately before making judgment of those involved. I will share with the House some of the myths that were circulating in this past month.

The first myth was that Electro-Motive was a Canadian company that was sold to the American company, Caterpillar. The truth is that Electro-Motive has been owned by several American companies since 1930. In effect, Electro-Motive has been a Canadian subsidiary of different American companies for over eight decades. It was originally two Canadian companies, Winton Engine Company and Electro-Motive Corporation, that were purchased and merged by America's General Motors beginning in 1930. In 2005 an American equity firm bought the company and resold it to the American firm, Caterpillar Progress Rail Division, in 2010.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for London North Centre.

Another myth was that the federal government gave money to Electro-Motive. The truth is that no federal government, Conservative or Liberal, has given money to Electro-Motive.

Another myth was that the Prime Minister visited the plant a few years ago to announce a tax break for Electro-Motive. The truth is that the Prime Minister visited the EMD plant to announce a tax change that would make it more affordable for Canadian rail companies to purchase newer, better and more environmentally friendly locomotives. This was a tax write-down for the customers of companies like EMD, but not for EMD.

To be clear, no monies were given to Electro-Motive. Nor were its taxes reduced as a result. In fact, customers like VIA Rail, CN Rail and CP Rail would benefit as they all ran a mix of both Electro-Motive and General Electric locomotives.

Another myth was that London's Conservative MPs did not meet with the Canadian Auto Workers Union representatives or the workers. The truth is that London's Conservative MPs did meet with members of CAW Local 27 in meetings in their MP offices. These meetings were intended to be productive and constructive conversations rather than photo opportunities.

There is no shortage of people willing to go to the picket line for a photo op, but as was too often the case, there was a shortage of thoughtful dialogue taking place. I met with workers privately and I also spoke to them at a demonstration in downtown London. Anyone with access to YouTube can see it for themselves.

Another myth was that the federal government had been silent about the Electro-Motive situation. The truth is that our federal labour minister had private discussions directly with Electro-Motive, the Canadian Auto Workers Union and London Mayor Joe Fontana in an attempt to encourage both sides back to the bargaining table. These discussions took place in mid-January. As the federal government had no legal jurisdiction over this labour dispute, although the Province of Ontario did, the federal labour minister appealed to the senses of both sides, but could not order that talks take place. She used her best moral suasion, but neither side was willing to blink.

I have not been silent either. I have now conducted more media interviews on this situation than on any other issue since being elected. While my comments are not always carried by the press, my message has been the same all along. Both sides should have returned to the bargaining table in good faith to bring an end to the uncertainty that lingered for the workers, their families and the community at large for more than a month. Nothing could be resolved until talks began.

It is also worth noting that I sent a very lengthy letter explaining this situation and my position to several thousand of my constituents. I have been providing weekly updates by email to almost 15,000 Londoners.

Another myth was that the federal government could legislate an end to this labour dispute. The truth is that if only it were that easy. The federal government did not have the power to end this labour dispute through legislation. It was a labour dispute between a private company and its labour representatives. The federal government did not have jurisdiction over this labour dispute.

The Government of Canada holds jurisdiction over federally-regulated workplaces, crown corporations and the federal public service. Some pointed to the example of recent federal labour disputes at Canada Post and Air Canada, one a crown corporation, the other a federally-regulated workplace, as examples of federal intervention. Electro-Motive is a private company. It is not a federally-regulated workplace.

I was genuinely surprised that the union in this case basically let the Province of Ontario off the hook. Instead, much energy was wasted trying to blame those with far less control over the situation for political reasons. Our mayor, a former Liberal minister of labour, jumped on the same bandwagon.

Another myth is that the federal government can order Caterpillar to continue Electro-Motive operations in London. The truth is Caterpillar is an American company that can legally decide where it wishes to operate in the world. The Canadian government cannot order any foreign company to do its business in Canada. This goes the same for Canadian companies.

Another myth is that the federal government could have reviewed the sale of Electro-Motive to Caterpillar and placed conditions and/or protections for the workers in the agreement. The truth is the sale of Electro-Motive did not trigger a foreign investment review by Industry Canada because the sale of the company was below the monetary threshold required for such a formal review.

Every day businesses are bought and sold by Canadians and foreign companies, and most do not trigger a formal review. This extraordinary intervention by the federal government is reserved for extremely large and sensitive transactions. They are triggered by the conditions in the legislation and they are not initiated at the whim of politicians.

When the Canadian Auto Workers was asked about the purchase of Progress Rail in 2010, CAW local 27 president, Tim Carrie, was quoted in the London Free Press saying, “This is an employer who has an interest in locomotive and rail. We’re looking at it in a positive light”. Had a review even been triggered at the time, it is likely, based in part on these comments, that the union would have been fully supportive of the sale. There was no indication that trouble lay ahead.

I again emphasize that the workers and the community were largely misled on many of the key issues. This did nothing to help bridge the gap between both sides, and I hope both sides have learned a lesson from this. The tragedy and fallout from this is that several hundred unionized and non-unionized workers from EMD, and even more firms doing work for EMD, are left to wonder what lies ahead for them.

Some have since suggested that the Canadian government ban Caterpillar products from being sold in Canada. While this would likely violate a number of trade agreements, Canadians can take action as they choose. Canadians can exercise their buying power however they wish. No government needs to legislate this power to citizens.

If people do not want to buy from Caterpillar, then they should not. If they can convince their friends and neighbours to do the same, they can. The power already rests with Canadians to make these decisions. Good companies should be rewarded with those dollars and those that fail to meet expectations should expect to find that it will affect their bottom line.

Has Caterpillar acted honourably in this labour dispute? If its intention was always to leave, then I would ask this question. Why did it not just make that announcement on January 1, which coincided, by the way, with the seven month contract extension that ended on December 31?

The misery and fear placed on all EMD workers was brutal. If Caterpillar truly intended to stay, was its in-the-face wage and benefit reductions due to local profitability concerns or because it had other options in Indiana? Now we will never know.

Clearly, the CAW was not prepared to preside over the single largest pay cut and benefit cut in its history. Neither side moved enough from their positions, and the workers in London are the losers for it.

I look forward to the rest of this debate and hope that these factual clarifications will help my colleagues debate honestly and factually about the issue at hand. I only wish to remind my hon. colleagues of the cautionary words provided to me by my Cape Breton mother. She said “Ed, no matter how many times they tell a lie, it does not make it the truth.”

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague's comments.

I wonder whether the final comment, the final suggestion that the fault lies with the CAW, is an accurate reflection of what really happened and if the suggestion that the CAW was at fault because, in his words, it was not prepared to take the single largest pay cut in its history is a really accurate reflection of what took place.

I do not believe the members of the CAW, the workers, were in any way prepared to slash their wages in half to meet the demand of an employer who would only demand more. We know how this works. They test the water to see how much they are willing to take and then if they say yes, they go in and get more.

Therefore, how is the CAW at fault?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question points out a few things. The first one that strikes me is that this is in no way a condemnation of the CAW. However, I will make it clear that the real tragedy and the real victims are the workers, both unionized and non-unionized, as well as the ripple effect that it has to potentially some 2,000 workers in our great city.

I talked about the issue of truth and non-truth and the reason I made the statements in the way that I did was to make it particularly clear that there was a lot of misinformation out there. I indicated in my comments that it was in relation to what the media had been saying and some politicians repeated those fabrications. I thought it was important that we tell the truth. We have an obligation, as members of Parliament, to set the stage by telling the truth.

As I made clear in my comments as well, when it comes to that negotiation I think it was a brutal offer. However, I also said that I do not know if that was in relation to the profitability of EMD locally or if it was a situation where it was already pre-ordained to go to Indiana. However, we will never know that.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague called the closure of the Electro-Motive plant in London a tragedy for the whole community because of all the other jobs outside of the plant that will be affected because of the economic loss.

Given that it was such a tragedy, does the member think that the regulations should be changed around the foreign purchases of assets that are important to everyday Canadians here in Canada? Are there changes that need to be made and, if so, what changes does he think should be made?