Claude Gravelle

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, he is right. I said a while ago that this is not only about my community. It is about Voisey's Bay, Port Colborne and every resource across Canada.

What can we do to make the government more transparent? I think we have tried everything. I think the best thing we can do is to vote it out at the next election. That would certainly do it for me. I think that is the best thing we can do. If we want a transparent government, we have to change the government.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I do not think the Conservatives have a clear picture of foreign investments in Canada. I am convinced that they have no idea what is happening in Sudbury relating to Vale Inco and Xstrata.

I thank the Bloc for its support.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2010]

moved:

That, given the government's failure to act in the best interest of Canada when it allowed the sell-off of Inco, Falconbridge, Stelco and Nortel, the government should act immediately to protect the interests of Canadian workers, their communities and the strategic and long-term interests of the Canadian economy, by improving its review of foreign takeovers that involve key Canadian resource, manufacturing, high tech and, potentially, telecommunications companies, by strengthening the Investment Canada Act by: (a) lowering the threshold for public review; (b) ensuring public hearings are held in affected communities; and (c) requiring publication of the reasons for decisions and conditions to be met by approved foreign owners.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, and I would like to thank my colleague from Windsor West for his invaluable contribution.

Today, this House will be debating a motion that speaks to one of the main reasons I have pursued public life: the need for this Parliament and for this government to protect the resources that belong to the Canadian people and their communities.

Having spent my whole life in northern Ontario, I can tell my hon. colleagues in this chamber that my community is living proof of the current government's and previous government's failures to protect the interests of Canadian workers, their communities and the strategic and long-term interests of the Canadian economy as a whole.

To be clear, the NDP is not against foreign investment. We are opposed to the kind of foreign takeovers we have witnessed in my community of Greater Sudbury. I will come back to this point later.

At a critical time of increasing global energy needs due to growing economies, country after country has begun to view its supply of natural resources as an issue of national security. China, for example, is investing in iron ore, gold, silver, copper, aluminum and coal in countries around the world. Others such as Vietnam, Russia and India are following suit. Indonesia, an exporter of coal, has begun scaling back its exports.

It begs the following question. Why is Canada not assessing its key sectors, such as natural resources, manufacturing, high tech including green technologies, and telecommunications, through the filter of long-term strategic need?

Canada, it seems, is heading in the opposite direction of many countries by increasing significantly the minimum threshold upon which a federal review of a foreign takeover takes place.

In other words, the government is telling the world to help itself to our natural resources, our technologies and our intellectual property. While it is at it, it is also signalling them not to worry about those conditions of sale the federal government imposes, because the federal government will not pursue them even when they break their contract.

One only has to look at the government's disgraceful behaviour during the Vale Inco strike in my community. In Greater Sudbury 3,200 workers, members of the United Steelworkers Local 6500, remain on strike because Brazilian-owned Vale Inco has refused to return to the negotiating table.

The government just stays silent and claims it is provincial jurisdiction, all the while meeting with Vale Inco representatives 25 times since 2008. So much for this strike being a purely provincial matter.

The strike at Vale Inco is a perfect example of why we need the House today to support the motion, which seeks to strengthen the Investment Canada Act to prevent the very situation that community after community is facing across Canada today.

Briefly, the motion calls for lowering the threshold for public review of foreign takeovers, ensuring public hearings are held in affected communities, and requiring publication of the reasons for decisions and conditions to be met by approved foreign owners.

Here is a fact. There have been more than 13,500 foreign takeovers in Canada, 334 in the last year. Here is another fact. The federal government has disallowed only one. That is right, one. That was due in large measure to the work of the NDP caucus and former NDP member, Peggy Nash, in particular.

Here are some more facts:

In 2007, for the first time since 1999, foreign-controlled companies operating in Canada held 52.8% of manufacturing assets, up from 46.8% in 2006.

Statistics Canada reported that the increase “was due largely to foreign acquisitions of Canadian-controlled firms, especially in the primary metals and wood and paper industries.”

In 2007, foreign-controlled firms held 38.5% of Canada’s oil and gas industries, 48.8% of operating revenues, and 44.6 % of operating profits.

In one year alone, 2006, foreign control of Canada’s mining sector rose from 12% to 40%.

This issue that our caucus has laid before this House today is both timely and critical.

On the motion's second point, stakeholder and community consultation, it remains deeply perplexing to me why the government has not conducted such consultations prior to making a decision on a proposed foreign takeover.

If the government had consulted with the community of Greater Sudbury, a community that has had decades and decades of experience with mining, it would have heard about people's concerns as to whether Vale Inco understood the community's history with mining, or our strong labour roots, or the importance we place on trust and good faith in negotiations.

Vale, in turn, would have gleaned some insight into the fact that union busting was a non-starter in northern Ontario.

I want to stress, though, that this is not just about northern Ontario. It is about all of Canada. Every community, including our northern and first nations communities, must have a say in the development of key resource sectors.

Finally, I want to touch on the third element of my motion, and that is transparency. The government and previous governments have been ignorant or blind to the fact that a foreign entity does not buy our natural resources. It is merely leasing them.

Those resources belong to the people of Canada.

Canadians have the right to know the decisions that form the basis of approval by their government and the key conditions that must be met by foreign companies when they take over a Canadian company.

We are not asking for 100% disclosure. We understand the need for protecting certain information. But there has to be greater transparency. The status quo simply will not do.

We need only to ask those employees who have been laid off despite company commitments to protect those jobs.

I want to be clear that the motion is about protecting Canada's long-term strategic interests. It is not about stopping foreign investment in Canada, but it is about stopping foreign takeovers that are not a net benefit to Canada, for example, those companies that seek to come into a community, conduct high grading of our purest forms of key resources and then pack up and leave when they are done.

We support and welcome foreign investment in Canada because our companies are also investing in other countries. It makes good business sense. In 2008, for example, Canadian direct investment abroad totalled $637 billion and foreign direct investment in Canada totalled $505 billion.

Keep in mind that at least 15% of investment overseas by Canadians, or almost $100 billion, went to tax havens, like the Bahamas, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands—which have no income tax)—, an amount several times greater than the GDP of those countries.

Therefore, before my Conservative colleagues across the way spring these numbers, I would want them to acknowledge that tax evasion is not foreign investment—it is simply tax evasion.

In this competitive global environment, we need to balance the strategic interests of our country and its people with the need to foster a fair and level playing field for both Canadian and foreign companies wishing to invest in Canada. The status quo is failing Canadians. The government has yet to articulate exactly what its net benefit test is when it approves takeover after takeover. This motion addresses some of the key weaknesses of the current system.

I hope that, together, we as parliamentarians can begin to address this imbalance by protecting the interests of Canadian workers, their communities and the strategic and long-term interests of the Canadian economy.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges for her speech. Today, I heard several times that the Quebec model could serve as an example for the rest of Canada. I would like the member to tell us what lessons the federal government could learn from the Quebec model.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke a lot about childhood education, early intervention and getting to youth in time to prevent them from committing crimes.

I would like to know his thoughts on the closure of the prison farms.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his speech on Bill C-4.

He provided us with a lot of information on Quebec's system, which, statistics show, is better than the rest of Canada's.

Could the hon. member tell me what the Conservative government could do to bring the statistics in the rest of Canada to the same level as those in Quebec?

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for York West for her intervention on this subject.

Sometimes we blame youth crime on poverty. We blame it sometimes on a lack of education. Sometimes we blame it on single parents. Sometimes we blame it on a lack of jobs.

I know some teenagers who were brought up in well-to-do families with two parents who were well educated, and it turned out that they are still criminals, so we cannot use that as an example for a blanket statement and blame it on these kids.

We also say that sometimes incarceration is the way to go with these young criminals. If that were true, Texas would be the safest place in the world, but it is not.

I would like the member's opinion on what the government could do to help prevent youth crime.

[Vale Inco, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the government does not end its shameful silence and call on Vale Inco to return to the negotiating table, we could face a possible disaster. Constituents are raising alarm bells about Vale Inco's reported plans to reopen the nickel refinery near the town of Copper Cliff with replacement workers.

Having been there, I can say that this refinery is one of the most complicated and intricate plants in the world. When operated by skilled, experienced workers, it produces high quality nickel pellets and powders.

The process at this plant yields gas and liquid forms of nickel which are stored under high pressure. If inhaled, the nickel carbonyl gas can cause death. A leak, with the wind blowing in a certain direction, could reach populated areas. I cannot overestimate how tragic the consequences would be.

For the sake of the well-being of residents, I demand that the government prevent this plant from reopening with replacement workers.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, April 20th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-514, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (lump sum).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to table my private member's bill.

RCMP officers put their lives in danger in the service of Canada and no amount of money to their beneficiaries could ever compensate for their loss but a payment of $300,000 would at least ensure that these families are not left in a vulnerable financial situation while they deal with their grief.

This bill would also ensure payment is made to the beneficiary of every officer killed in the line of duty irrespective of their time in service.

I also wish to point out that this bill is consistent with one of the key priorities of members of the Canadian Police Association who are on the Hill this week to bring their concerns directly to parliamentarians.

My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway is pleased to second this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[AGRICULTURE, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak briefly to Motion 460, brought forward by the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

As a member from northern Ontario representing a diverse riding of small agricultural communities, such as Verner, Warren, St. Charles and Noelville as well as urban and suburban communities, issues with respect to agriculture and food security are of great interest to me.

I congratulate the member on the intended goal of the motion, but I must agree with my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, who spoke recently on the motion.

I agree with many who note that our Canadian farmers are experiencing frustration at not being able to have access to the latest technology the way their competitors do. We definitely need to level the playing field for our farmers. We should not lose sight of that, even when debate on the motion concludes.

My New Democrat colleagues noted that while the motivation behind the motion is a good one, the vagueness of Motion No. 460, as it is written, would result in something I could not support, and that would be Canada automatically approving any product approved in the United States, Mexico and other countries without ensuring that they meet Canadian standards. That would be a race to the bottom, to the lowest level of Mexico. Instead of bringing Mexico to our level, Mexico would bring us to its level.

The motion could potentially result in products being made available in Canada that do not meet our standards. It is really an issue of maintaining our autonomy in this area. Therefore, let us apply a precautionary principle here and revisit the motion in a more detailed and comprehensive way.

By way of context, we know that Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, already consider equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes, but the House has also heard about the challenges that exist.

For example, as noted previously, according to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, CFA, there currently exists a pesticide technology gap, which has a significant impact on the competitiveness of Canadian producers. This is due in good measure to one key factor, pesticide companies often do not see the economic value in registering products in the smaller Canadian market.

However, the CFA says that there are ways of addressing this problem. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, must continue working toward harmonizing its practices with other countries and encouraging pesticide companies to enter into joint or multinational review processes.

The PMRA must also continue to modernize the review process so it can increase the reliance of acceptable foreign reviews to make the pesticide registration process as efficient and fast as possible, while maintaining high Canadian standards for health and safety. This wording does not appear in Motion No. 460. I agree that maximum residue limits need to be harmonized at a faster rate so required pesticide products can be registered, and some trade irritants eliminated.

The CFA also emphasizes that in addition to the availability of products, the other irritant for Canadian farmers is the price of these pesticide products. The fact remains that Canadian producers continue to pay up to 60% more than their American competitors for pesticide products. Surely we can correct this problem. Canadian producers need to have a level playing field.

I am told that the PMRA is now in the process of finalizing regulations that will outline the process for registering generic pesticide products in Canada. I believe it is so important for Canadian farmers to gain access to these important pesticide products.

The harmonization approach, at least in regard to pesticides, often fails to consider variations in environmental conditions across jurisdictions. Pesticides that are used to combat pests in Mexico, which is hot and dry, are not the same as those we need in Canada's much cooler climate. Streamlining this process is critical. It begs the question as to why there are 55 to 60 generic product applications still under review by the PMRA, some under review for several years.

The 2010 growing season is almost upon us. Clearly, some farmers are anxious that some of these products be registered in time for them to use. My colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior spoke about a program that was available to Canadian farmers.

The current grower requested own use import program was developed to assist Canadian producers to access the same products as Canadian producers. Canadian farm organizations, such as the Canadian Horticultural Council, act as a nomination committee to propose pesticide products that should enter into this program. Farmers can purchase approved products in the U.S., apply a Canadian label to them and bring them into Canada. Unfortunately, this program has not been as successful as hoped for because the rules that restrict the eligibility of products have made it difficult to get useful and important pesticides on this list.

In short, Motion No. 460 is about recognizing as equivalent to our own, the scientific research and regulatory approval processes of Canada's principal trading partners, such as the United States, for products used in the agriculture sector. I understand the intent is to ensure Canadian farmers are competitive and have a level playing field by having access to commercial agricultural products similar to those used by producers in competing countries, subject to Canadian standards, but here is where the problem lies. The motion, as written, does not mention the last part, “subject to Canadian standards”. This is a major stumbling block for me.

At the end of the day, our system must ensure that appropriate Canadian authorities still maintain the right to ensure that all approved products meet Canadian standards. For this reason, I will not be supporting Motion No. 460.