Chris Alexander

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have seen here an unbelievable performance from the member for Cape Breton—Canso. It is a sign of where the Liberal Party is today: talking down the economy; talking down the capacity of Canadian communities to create jobs and opportunity; talking down the fact that there are tens of thousands of jobs across this country, including in Atlantic Canada, that are going unfilled. His argument seems to be that because there are some ridings in this country where unemployment is a little higher, where employment insurance is going to have to be used a bit more—it is going to be there for Canadians—that we should not touch the system at all, that we should not reform it, that we should not make it work better, that we should not do these things that are necessary in the 21st century.

He does not want to clarify the rules. He prefers vagueness. He does not want unemployed people to get information about what jobs are available.

Does he not agree that his proposal to oppose reform of the employment insurance system would actually lead to higher unemployment and would prevent Canadians from getting jobs that are there?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

EI claimants who are receiving benefits are required to look for work. We want to clarify what is considered to be a reasonable job offer.

Why is the hon. member against such a reasonable, intelligent and modern reform?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not agree, because our hon. colleague is using words like “stolen”. I am shocked that a reform could be so misunderstood.

Does the hon. member agree that the program has always required that EI claimants look for work? How can she not think it is a good idea to clarify what is considered to be a reasonable job offer?

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his speech.

I have two questions for him off the top. First, this is an opposition motion. It calls for joint work by all of us here in Parliament to improve the economic outcomes for aboriginal peoples. How does the member opposite, new to the House, square that objective, set in a motion by his party, with his opposition to the building of pipelines? Is it really by shutting down the development of Canada's natural resource sectors that we will improve economic outcomes for aboriginal peoples? That is the first question.

Second, would the member acknowledge that consultation and treaty relations have advanced under this government as never before, in that we have concluded 400 such agreements with first nations in only seven years?

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member opposite for his speech. It is revealing of the NDP position on today's motion, which has important objectives behind it. We get a sense from the opposition House leader of where the emphasis is within those objectives, which are, after all, defined in a few lines in the motion.

The member mentioned the need to negotiate and the importance of fighting for this and that on the part of aboriginal groups and first nations. There was quite a bit of anger in his speech at various points. However, there were two items missing from his speech that I think would go a long way toward underpinning a coordinated approach in the House, which is what aboriginal communities want. One is acknowledgement of what has been achieved first and foremost by first nation communities in education, in terms of the protection of children and in terms of the improvement of drinking water in recent years by all of us together, but at the initiative of this government. The other is the complete absence in his speech, and in many speeches by those opposite, of the word “accountability”.

Would the House leader of the official opposition remind the House and all Canadians that the NDP attaches importance to the word “accountability”? We would not have results on education or any other front for first nation communities without progress on that—

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for York South—Weston looks at the record of this government since 2006 he will see much greater increases in financial commitment to first nations.

As part of this debate, I would simply ask the hon. member if he would acknowledge some of the achievements that have been made by first nations in their communities, thanks to federal government funding. Quite frankly, some of his colleagues have not done so.

There were 10,000 new homes built and many thousands of new homes renovated. There was increased funding for child and family services by 25%, not to mention the skills issue: there were 700 projects, not single, individual initiatives, but projects for whole communities and whole classes of young people, linking aboriginals across Canada with job training and counselling services. Some 400 land claims have been concluded since 2006.

Would the hon. member opposite acknowledge this as significant, substantial progress? Yes, it is progress the government needs to multiply. Would he agree that it is not simply a question of dollars? Without accountability—

[Governor General's History Award, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to this year's Governor General's History Award winners.

The teaching of history in our great country is much more than an academic pursuit. It reminds us that behind this vast land are stories of amazing sacrifice and achievement.

One of six winners for excellence in teaching was Daraius Bharucha, a resident of Ajax who teaches at Bill Crothers Secondary School in Unionville. He and his colleague Stefano Fornazzari San Martín use multimedia to connect their students' family experience of immigration with major periods of Canadian history through a project called “My Place in Canadian History: Digital Storytelling with Historical Thinking Concepts”.

The Sir John A. Macdonald Prize was awarded to François-Marc Gagnon, Nancy Senior and Réal Ouellet for their magnificent edition of the Codex Canadensis and the Writings of Louis Nicolas: The natural history of the New World, Histoire Naturelles des Indes Occidentales. What a gorgeous book.

Published at the beginning of the 18th century, the Codex Canadensis documents the flora, fauna and aboriginal life in New France, a true reflection of our Canadian renaissance.

I encourage all members and all Canadians to give the gift of Canadian history this Christmas, to share the beauty of the Codex canadensis and to celebrate our GG's history award winners.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

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?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to engage colleagues opposite in questions. The difference between the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and them over the contents of the motion is that the Calgary Chamber of Commerce actually wants investment, which the NDP is not really succeeding in disguising as its real agenda.

The member represents Toronto, a global financial hub. He represents constituents whose jobs depend on foreign investment and exports. Could the member give us one example of foreign investment in Canada, of net benefit to Canada, that he is on record as supporting?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary to hear such fire being breathed on the other side about communist China. We on this side tend to rely on members opposite for insights into that system. Clearly, posturing in the House knows no bounds, at least on that side.

We need to know something from the member. Nickel Belt is a riding whose very name is synonymous with the powerful combination that Canadian and foreign investment have represented for Canadians and Canadian workers over decades and indeed centuries. Northern Ontario and Sudbury were developed that way. If the hon. member thinks that Inco and Falconbridge would have been developed without any foreign investment, without any access to investment from beyond our borders, he is quite simply wrong.

Does the member opposite understand that foreign investment is important to keeping the economy strong and to building it in the future, or is he with Jim Stanford, the chief economist of the Canadian Auto Workers, who in today's paper says that Canada does not need foreign investment? If he does think there should be foreign investment, a bit of it, how much of the over $600 billion invested in the country would he—