House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was conservatives.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Scarborough Southwest (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 24% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Conservative Party of Canada January 28th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, holidays are a time for family and friends to spend valuable time together. However, they are also a time for reflection, to take stock of the year that was.

For Conservatives, 2012 was filled with lowlights: environmental protection laws gutted; EI and government services cut; a generational reduction to old age security; the largest meat recall in Canadian history; the F-35 fiasco; the selling off of our resources to China; and minister after minister caught up in ethical scandals.

How have the Conservatives started the New Year? By breaking conflict of interest rules and stuffing even more of their Conservative cronies into the unelected and unaccountable Senate. In contrast, New Democrats elected a new leader in 2012 and assembled an opposition that is focused, energized and united.

While Conservatives start 2013 plagued by scandals and mismanagement, New Democrats will offer practical solutions and proposals to build a fairer, greener and more prosperous Canada for all.

Business of Supply December 10th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and ask a fairly clear and simple question. The member for Burlington has raised it.

We have been trying to get the Investment Canada Act studied at the industry committee so we can thoroughly look through everything that has been proposed, all the changes that are happening and to actually have industry and Canadian stakeholders come to committee to report on what they like, what they do not like and what they would like to see in the Investment Canada Act that would make it better for Canadians.

We do have a motion to that effect coming back to committee in January. Will the parliamentary secretary be supporting the opposition motion to study the Investment Canada Act?

Business of Supply December 10th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the member's statement about not supporting foreign investment and development. The member clearly was not listening when I spoke. I will quote from my own speech again.

Canada needs foreign investment to grow our economy and develop our resources, but we should not be sacrificing control of our future by forfeiting our ability to ensure economically and environmentally sustainable resource development.

Therefore, why did the member just lie there?

Business of Supply December 10th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, as we heard from Premier Redford in Alberta, they are going to be evaluating the deal that was made, because the consultations did not happen beforehand.

That actually brings up another important point that has been raised a few times by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence when he talks about the strategic importance of the Alberta oil sands. My question there would be: Why is it fair to draw a line, or perhaps a firewall, around there when we have other strategic assets and investments that are going to be happening in the Ring of Fire? Why is it more important than the Ring of Fire? Why is it more important than oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador? Why is it more important than development happening in Canada's territories?

Furthermore, where does it take into consideration that all of this development is happening on first nations land? Why are they not at the table? Why are they not being consulted about what is going to be happening to their land and their future?

Business of Supply December 10th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I notice there were lots of words in that sentence but it does not say “the protection of intellectual property”. It says “product innovation”.

With respect to U. S. Steel and Stelco, it was only after this side of the House was attacking the government time and time again that it actually took U.S. Steel to court. Guess what. They settled out of court and we still do not know the details.

The smelter in Hamilton has been closed down again, so where is it that the government defending Canadian jobs?

Business of Supply December 10th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the intrepid member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

I am proud today to stand and second today's motion and speak in support of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster's motion. I also wholeheartedly agree with the amendment proposed by the member for LaSalle—Émard.

It is far past time that this Parliament clarifies the criteria for the net benefit test and improves the transparency of decisions taken with respect to foreign takeovers. In fact, the time to do this was in 2010 when the Conservative government unanimously supported an NDP motion for a clear net benefit test and a more transparent investment review process.

Contrary to its talking points, we know that the Conservative government is not one that supports transparency for itself. Since coming to power, the government has done everything it can to close doors and keep Canadians out of the discussion, whether by abusing committee in camera rules so no motion is dealt with publicly, on the F-35, or these kinds of backroom deals.

The manner in which last Friday's evening announcement was made shows exactly what is wrong with this process. The New Democrats believe that the government has badly mismanaged the takeover applications from CNOOC and Petronas by failing to clarify rules for governing foreign investment. The government has confused international markets. Trading on Friday afternoon was proof positive. Shares of CNOOC and Nexen were all across the board, even triggering a circuit breaker that stopped trading on these shares in the stock market because of the confusion sewn by the government.

If only the Conservative government were as good at handling the economy as it is with sticking with PMO talking points. During question period last Friday, I asked why there had been no consultation with Canadians over the Nexen takeover and whether we should expect a decision taken in the light of day or another decision taken in the dark. Of course, soon after the House adjourned and MPs went back to their ridings, the Prime Minister announced after the sun went down that his government would be approving the Nexen-CNOOC deal.

The Conservatives have shown time and time again that they do not respect investors by not clarifying the net benefit rules and they do not respect Parliament by not making the announcement here or by giving members of Parliament a vote. Polls show that nearly 70% of Canadians have serious concerns about the CNOOC takeover. Canadians have a right to be concerned as they have seen what this kind of deal that the Conservatives have approved brings.

The Conservatives approved the sale of Falconbridge mining that resulted in the elimination of 686 permanent jobs. The Conservatives took no action. Two U.S. Steel plants in 2009 were shut down resulting in the elimination of 1,500 jobs. The Conservatives again took no action.

We need to clarify the net benefit test to ensure future takeovers benefit Canadians and do not result in undue job losses.

Of course, the Conservatives are not the only ones with a terrible track record in handling foreign takeovers. I need to ask today why the Liberals are now siding with the Conservatives on selling out Canadians to foreign state-owned companies. History seems to be repeating itself with the Liberals. They reviewed thousands of takeovers during their time in government and turned down not one of them.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast are demanding that the Liberals and Conservatives stop selling us out and to clarify net benefit.

Under pressure over these takeover bids, the Conservatives promised to introduce new guidelines to clarify the investment review process, particularly for state-owned enterprises. The new guidelines announced on Friday are vague and inadequate and will not give certainty and protection for Canadians or for investors. The Conservatives have once again broken their promise to fix the Investment Canada Act. Instead, they merely tinkered with the process that everyone agrees is broken. Hence, this is why the Calgary Chamber of Commerce made its call and why we are here today supporting that call for clear rules on net benefit.

The Conservatives claim that under the new rules the takeovers by state-owned companies will only happen under exceptional circumstances. What are these exceptional circumstances? Without clarity, which is what we are calling for in this motion today, an exceptional circumstance could be what side of the bed the Prime Minister gets up on that morning. In other words, the Conservatives will never sign another deal like this ever again, until another deal like this lands on the table of the industry minister.

It is the Minister of Industry who has mishandled the sale of Nexen and continues to keep Canadians in the dark. The minister was so eager to please China that the Conservatives approved the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC even though they had said the rules were not good enough and they are changing them just so this kind of deal could not happen again.

Just yesterday, the minister also indicated that it is now up to China to reveal the so-called benefits of this deal to Canadians. That is incredible. It is the responsibility of the Conservative government and the minister to explain themselves and their actions to Canadians, not for us to go running to China to find out what happened.

Both the business sector and Canadians need certainty when it comes to foreign takeovers, but the current review process lacks full transparency and accountability. We now have a chance once again to fix this. New Democrats are demanding a full and public review of the Investment Canada Act by Parliament to protect Canadians and investors. Canada needs foreign investment to grow our economy and develop our resources, but we should not be sacrificing control of our future by forfeiting our ability to ensure economically and environmentally sustainable resource development.

As good public administrators, New Democrats want to set specific criteria for state-owned companies to meet net benefit requirements, to protect the Canadian economy from potential foreign government interference. New Democrats want to improve the transparency of decisions and to clarify the net benefit test. Canadians deserve more than secret deals and economically ignorant Conservatives.

As this House did in 2010, will the government be supporting our motion to clarify the net benefit test, but this time actually do it?

On that note, it has come up multiple times in the industry committee, and the member for Burlington has spoken about it today, that a couple of years ago the minister sent a request to have the committee study the Investment Canada Act. The committee being master of its own domain, as we constantly hear from the other side, chose to study something else at that time. Now the New Democrats, since being elected as the official opposition last year, have been calling time and time again for the industry committee to study the Investment Canada Act. I would really like to ask if the member for Burlington is actually going to support the motion this time so we can have that study and actually clarify the rules for Canadians.

Recently, we have been doing a study on intellectual property in the industry committee, another very important and critical aspect of Canada's economy. One thing that has come up time and time again during the study is how important intellectual property is. What factors are taken into consideration with respect to the intellectual property that a company holds when a review is being undertaken? We have absolutely no answer from the Conservatives. As far as we know and can tell, they are not factoring intellectual property into whether there will be a net benefit to Canada when these foreign takeovers happen. This is a strategic and critical element that needs to be resolved in order to make sure future deals, as intellectual property gains importance, include it in the study of net benefit tests. We certainly have no answer from the government.

We have heard time and time again today about the government bringing more clarity to the process. In fact, the opposite is true. A couple of years ago with the potential sale of the Potash Corporation and MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, they were both turned down after much pleading and much effort from the New Democrats, as well as from the Saskatchewan government. We were pushing for those deals to be blocked. The government came up with a new term at that point: a “strategic asset”. That is why it did not sell Potash. The Conservatives still have not clarified that. They still have not clarified “net benefit”.

Now they have brought a new term into the debate, which is “exceptional circumstances”. Now instead of having a clearer process, we have “net benefit”, which is not defined; we have “strategic assets”, which is not defined; and we have “exceptional circumstances”, which is not defined. This makes the process absolutely as clear as mud.

Business of Supply December 10th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, it was an honour to second the motion today by my esteemed colleague in regard to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce wanting to get clarity as to what net benefit means. Even though the Prime Minister did babble on on Friday, he did not deal with the fact that net benefit has not been defined. Nor did he provide any kind of information as to when these new rules they put in place are actually going to be released publicly. We also had the Minister of Industry saying, on the weekend, if we want to get more information about this deal, we should find out from China.

I would like to ask the member for his comments with respect to ministerial responsibility and how the industry minister seems to have abdicated that by saying that Canadians should go learn their information from a foreign government rather than their own.

Foreign Investment December 7th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, made up Conservative attacks cannot make up for the government's incompetence.

The Conservatives delayed decisions on Nexen and Petronas. Now they are delaying a decision on their own new investment agreement with China. It is clear Conservatives did not understand this agreement when they signed it, details like opening the door to unlimited foreign ownership of Canadian natural resources.

Instead of scrambling to understand their own investment agreement with China, will the Conservatives bring FIPPA to the House for a proper debate and a proper vote?

Foreign Investment December 7th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are up against the deadline on Nexen. Canadians are worried about this deal. Approving the Nexen buyout would give a Chinese state-owned company ownership over a huge slice of Canada's natural resources, yet this massive decision is being made behind closed doors. There are no clear rules and no consultation with Canadians. That is unacceptable.

Will the Conservatives announce their verdict on this Nexen takeover in the full light of day, or should Canadians expect another last minute decision taken at midnight?

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 December 3rd, 2012

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the Minister of State for Finance talk about Canada being a great place to do business, because in November some 11,000 jobs were in fact shed by the Canadian economy. There seems to be no recognition of that by the government.

He mentioned talking with Canadians. However, I met one of my local business improvement associations yesterday representing small businesses in Danforth, who do not like the Conservatives' hiring tax credit because they know they are going to have to pay it back on payroll taxes down the road. What they want to see instead are apprenticeships and wage assistance so they can hire and train people and we can actually bridge that skill shortage that exists in Canada. They would like to have better education and information from the government.

We know that as front-line services get cut at Service Canada and other areas, Canadians and businesses are having a tougher time getting information out of the government. What is the minister going to do about that? Why is that not in the budget?

Furthermore, the member spoke about committees. Why was there not enough in this budget to have it sent to the industry, science and technology committee? The government likes to talk about being good for R and D, and science and technology and industry, but there was not enough in this budget to actually take it there so we, the members of the committee, could look at it. Why not?