Chris Alexander

[Science and Technology, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we could adjust all of our spending to 1930 dollars. We could adjust it to 1950 dollars. We do not do that in the accounts of the Government of Canada. Liberal governments have not done it and Conservative governments have not done it. The $9 billion figure is accurate and we do not want to see the member opposite leading Canadian scientists into some new area of confusion because of this.

The member claims that we spent half as much as we have spent. The taxpayers, whose money went into those budgets to support that research and development, beg to differ with the member opposite.

The government continues to take action in economic action plan 2013. There are $20 million over three years for a new pilot program to be delivered through the NRC's industrial research assistance program. This is a fabulous opportunity for small and medium-sized enterprises to commercialize the products or services more quickly and effectively by providing them with credit notes to help pay for research, technology and business development services. It will also help innovation hubs that foster entrepreneurial talent. It builds upon the investments in 2012.

All of that taken together, under our government, adds up to $9 billion. By 2013, we expect we will reach $11 billion in terms of our investment in this field.

[Science and Technology, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have just been treated to another insight into the kind of distorted mirror of economics on which the NDP seems to pride itself.

The $9 billion that has been spent by this government on research and development are real dollars. That is the way the government spends money. We spend a dollar; we count it as a dollar spent on research and development. We do not go back to some measure of 1981 dollars or 2001 dollars and then reduce everything to that earlier value of our currency. That is a futile exercise that economists have every right to engage in, but that is not part of the bookkeeping of the Government of Canada.

It disturbs us to hear, yet again, a certain level of economic illiteracy from our NDP colleagues when they try to deny the reality of what this government's spending has been. It has been taxpayers' money that has gone into research and development. We are proud of that record, whether it is to go to centres of excellence or fundamental physics or, yes indeed, to support accelerators that are taking discoveries from the laboratory into the marketplace.

This is the other area where scientists and other Canadians are unsure of their ground with the NDP because, however great its rhetoric may be on these subjects, it is not prepared to commit categorically to the market economy as a building block, a fundamental principle of Canada's economy. The NDP is not prepared, as we saw at its convention, to admit that the profit principle is what guides private sector activity in this country. That has been in the NDP preamble up until now. Attempts to paper that over with something else are not working.

We are proud of the NRC and other departments. We are proud of the discoveries and innovation we have supported. We are proud of the fact that Canada is now ranked the top advanced economy in the world for state spending on fundamental research and development.

Let me list a few recent successes.

Last fall, the National Research Council of Canada flew the world's first civilian jet powered by 100% biofuel.

Last year, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, TRIUMF, played a significant role in the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle.

More recently, as we have all seen, Chris Hadfield became the first Canadian to take command of the International Space Station.

Those $9 billion are at work. Tom Jenkins has led an expert panel to review federal support to R and D, to improve contributions. This panel recommended a new approach to supporting innovation, which we are adopting. That brought $121 million more to invest in the strategic focus of the NRC, in just this budget, economic action plan 2013.

We are all proud of that institution. It has been here since 1916. It has brought incredible discoveries to the world—the discovery of the pacemaker and computer animation technology—and those discoveries have helped create jobs.

The NRC is now working with other players in Canada's innovation system, including academia and the public and private sectors, to adapt to business research needs by concentrating on active, business-driven, industry-relevant research.

This is something that other jurisdictions are doing, that Canada knows it needs to do, that Canadian scientists want to do because they want their discoveries to be relevant to the marketplace and, obviously, that our peers and those whose private sectors spend more on research and development around the world have been doing for some time. It is the right thing to do. This increased spending, this strong support for research and development in this country will continue under this government.

[Ethics, April 18th, 2013]

Another litany of untruths, Mr. Speaker, and nary a question to be found.

On the seal hunt, it is on the public record. It has been said in the House time and time again. There are Liberal members of this place and Liberals across the country who are categorically opposed to the seal hunt, who are on record, who stand with the EU, Russia and all the countries that member mentioned against the seal hunt.

She, for her part, seems to be in favour of it. Where does the Liberal Party stand? We and Labradorians have no clue, but they do know where this strong Conservative government stands: in favour of that traditional way of life, in favour of infrastructure for the people of Labrador and in favour of Peter Penashue.

[Ethics, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think the poor quality of the words chosen by the member for Random—Burin—St. George's in the screed that she just delivered on the floor of the House of Commons, at a very uncommon time for partisan attacks, at this stage of our day, really speaks to the quality of representation Newfoundland has had in the House by confining itself to representation from the opposition. It also speaks to the reasons why the people of Labrador elected Peter Penashue in the first place. He brought a strong voice to this place and to the Government of Canada, not only for Labrador, but for all of Newfoundland and Labrador, which are sadly under-represented and misrepresented by members like the one for Random—Burin—St. George's.

Her question, if there was a question, was riddled with untruths, misunderstanding, and distortion of the record of Peter Penashue, which stands for itself. It is on full display to the people of Labrador as I speak and it will ensure that they have the opportunity to put a strong member of Parliament back into this place in very short order.

In two years, Peter Penashue delivered more for the great land of Labrador, and for the province through his work in Labrador, than the Liberals and his opponent had managed in 20 years. We really do not need to spend too much time highlighting those results. They have been aired here, in prime time as it were, in question period, and in debate over and over again. They are known nationally, not just in Labrador.

Peter Penashue secured federal support for the development of Muskrat Falls. It was not done under the Liberal Party. It was left in abeyance. It was mishandled and it was fumbled and now the member for Random—Burin—St. George's is reduced to heckling to try and prevent the truth from coming out. It was done under this government. It is moving forward, a loan guarantee, a partnership that is unprecedented for Labrador. It will bring more jobs to that great part of our country than any project heretofore.

He worked to increase Internet speed in Labrador. This is something that those in urban ridings and maybe those in other parts in Newfoundland may take for granted, but in Labrador it is a top priority. It is a question of work, of communication, and of a basic quality of life. Peter Penashue brought a faster Internet to the people of Labrador.

He has delivered federal funding to pave the Trans-Labrador Highway. Of course, that highway was begun in earlier phases, but we had never seen this era of improvement on a grand scale until Peter Penashue became the elected representative for Labrador. He worked, obviously, to scrap the long-gun registry. That is something we never hear from the opposition, obviously. Were their hand on the tiller, were they anywhere close to representing Labrador or governing our country again, the long-gun registry would be right back in place, with its immediate penalty to the traditional way of life for the people of Labrador. That is not to mention the seal hunt or the polar bear hunt, for which Peter Penashue not only stood up in the House time and time again, but advocated across the country and around the world.

We have results on all of those fronts. The opposition members can only point to the absolute opposite on all of those fronts. They oppose the seal hunt, they wanted the long-gun registry, and they would actually side with the enemies of the polar bear hunt around the world, outside Canada. For that reason, Peter Penashue is the legitimate representative of the people of Labrador. We look forward to seeing him back here.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what the opposition does not want Canadians to know is that under the Liberal government, yes there were all those missions and expenses and travel here and there abroad, but the trade results did not follow. Under this government, we have achieved something like $40 billion of exports a year, but for the first time in Canadian history, a quarter of that is to countries other than the United States. Of course there has been softness in the United States. It is coming back. However, with today's motion, we hear the NDP and the Liberals from time to time endorsing the idea of walking away from a FIPA.

What would that do to Canada's exports? What would that do to our ability to export and to the growth Canadians have experienced as investors abroad in the past seven years? Could the hon. member comment on the dire implications of today's motion if it were ever to pass?

[Petitions, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition on behalf of 38 Canadians from British Columbia calling upon the government to pass Bill C-398, without significant amendment, to facilitate the immediate flow of live-saving generic medicines to developing countries.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, would the member not agree that labour mobility in a well-functioning labour market is a fundamental principle of a market economy? He claimed at the NDP convention that there were some breakthroughs on the policy front. Does the NDP now agree that a functioning labour market has to involve labour flexibility and labour mobility over the long-term, especially in an advanced economy such as Canada's?

Second, the member has spoken a lot about abuse. On this side of the House, we are determined to root out abuse and flouting of the regulations wherever we find it. However, would he not agree that the vast majority of Canadian employers that depend on temporary foreign workers in agriculture and other sectors have done a very good job of respecting the rules of that system? This is true of all those employers in my riding.

We have a firm and excellent foundation in the country to build on the success of the program for future generations.

[Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, together with the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs, I look forward to contributing to the debate.

An important issue needs to be understood properly. The record needs to be set straight. The members for Winnipeg North and Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte are asking for exactly the opposite of what they claim to be asking for. They are asking that due process and a thorough review not take place. Our duty here before the House, on behalf of the government, is to show why best practices and due diligence are necessary on this important issue.

As we know, historical context is important here. There is archeological evidence of first nations' presence in Newfoundland and Labrador going back to at least 7000 B.C. Archaic maritime aboriginal peoples were there. We know the tragic story, as my colleagues from St. John's East, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and Avalon will know even better, and as our once and future colleague, Peter Penashue, would know best, of the Beothuk. There was a Beothuk institute in Newfoundland in 1827, but the last reported confirmed member of that first nation passed away in St. John's in 1829.

Then, of course, we have the European presence, the Norse 12 centuries ago and other European nations starting five or six centuries ago. We know the context of Newfoundland and Labrador's aboriginal reality.

As the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte put it, Canada only joined Newfoundland and Labrador in Confederation in 1949. Let us remember that there was no agreement between the province and Canada on if, how and when the Indian Act would apply to the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland. In the absence of that agreement, the Indian Act was not applied. It was only in 1989 that the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, established to advocate for Mi'kmaq interests, brought forward its lawsuit against the federal government, which we have heard about here.

In 2008, our government agreed to recognize the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band to acknowledge the fact that Newfoundland's Mi’kmaq communities were not recognized when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949.

This history underscores that we are dealing with 60 years of non-recognition of the Mi'kmaq in Newfoundland. The member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte mentioned that time had run out for the government on this issue. In fact, we have been working on this issue non-stop.

What happened between 1993 and 2006? Four years after the court decision, through 13 years of Liberal governments, we do not seem to have had action on this issue.

The Conservatives have been taking action, and the agreement we have reached is yet another plank in the platform of achievement we have in moving forward relations with first nations.

Clearly, this complicated history will not be resolved overnight. What is important is to achieve certainty in the enrolment process and the rules of eligibility for membership so that all applicants are treated fairly and equitably. That is what Canadians insist on with regard to all the programs delivered by our government, especially those delivered under the Indian Act.

Remember that status brings with it a range of important benefits. This cannot and should not be taken lightly.

Even more important: it is crucial that the criteria for becoming a member be based on the expertise provided by the leadership of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and by the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band. That is absolutely vital to the credibility of the process and the integrity of this First Nation.

This motion overlooks the fact that concerns about enrolment are coming from community members in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation itself. They share our concerns and have a direct stake in the outcome of this process. They must have a say in these matters.

As the members opposite are well aware, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has put forward a chief federal negotiator. Work is happening on an intensive basis.

However, there is consensus that, whatever the final number may be, new members should contribute to the community and to the province of Newfoundland. All parties want to be sure that the membership is valid and that the original intention of the parties to the 2008 agreement is reflected, but also that the members are actually contributing to the community in which this first nation is being established or re-established. Members can understand the concern. Almost 70% of more than 100,000 applicants do not reside in any of the Mi’kmaq communities targeted for recognition in this initiative. They live elsewhere in Canada.

This last point gets to the real heart of the matter. When the agreement was signed, it was estimated there would be 9,000 to 12,000 people joining this first nation. It seemed to be a reasonable assumption based on the 2006 census, which showed roughly 23,500 residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who identified themselves as aboriginal. That includes, of course, Inuit and Innu members from Labrador and it includes others of aboriginal descent who were not, and did not want to be, part of this first nation. However, it was neither reasonable nor credible to expect more than 100,000 applications to become members of the Qalipu band.

The concerns in this regard are coming from the community. We are giving voice to them. Let us let the work take place. Let us ensure due diligence. Let us ensure it is quality work.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to ask my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou a question.

Given that this is the second day that we are studying this bill at third reading stage and that neither he nor his NDP colleagues have given any reason why we should not take action to ensure nuclear safety, why does the hon. member believe that we should wait some more before taking action and passing this bill?

This bill will allow Canada to fulfill some very important national obligations and address a very urgent global challenge. We have yet to see an act of nuclear terrorism, but without the measures proposed in this bill, Canada is exposed to certain risks.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it would be such a pleasure to be in this place if there were more questions like that. I encourage all hon. members to ask questions that are relevant to economic reality in the world today.

The short answer is that higher taxes would kill jobs. I will say that again so that everyone understands: higher taxes would kill jobs.

The NDP has not been following what has happened in Sweden. New Democrats think it is a socialist workers' paradise with very high taxes, but it is doing well because it has reduced taxes more aggressively than any country in Europe. It is doing well because it has lower debt levels, thanks to a government that is very similar to ours in its policies, more so than almost any in Europe.

Low taxes create jobs; high taxes kill jobs.