David Anderson

[National Tree Day, November 24th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will be making a friendly amendment at the end of my speech.

It is fun to be here today to speak to this motion. I may get teased a bit about forestry because of the name of my riding, which is Cypress Hills—Grasslands. People have told me they think that every tree in the riding has probably been planted and that is almost true.

The Bloc member opposite who just spoke to the motion is on the natural resources committee with me. She said she was surprised that a Conservative would move a motion such as this one. I would love to invite her to come to my farm in Saskatchewan and we can walk up and down the six miles of hedgerows that I have planted. I certainly invite my colleagues from the NDP to come as well and see my contribution toward the environment, because it is very important to those of us on this side of the House.

I am rising on behalf of the government side in support of the motion to create a national tree day, put forward by my colleague, the member for Ottawa—Orléans. He has a tremendous commitment to establishing an annual national day of celebration to recognize and appreciate the role that trees play in our country. I urge all members to support the motion and the friendly amendment that I will make, which will have national tree day fall on the Wednesday of National Forest Week which is an annual event held every fall.

Canada's trees and forests are a big part of what defines the national identity of our country, whether one lives in urban or rural Canada. We are very fortunate to have almost 400 million hectares of forest. That is a number that is almost too big to imagine, but we can understand that amount of forest represents 10% of the world's forest cover and 30% of the world's boreal forests.

These forests include a tremendous variety of species, from the majestic red cedars that live up to 1,500 years in British Columbia to the subalpine fir, the smallest of the western firs that dot our northern landscapes, to the eastern pine which is the tallest tree in this part of Canada. Of course, there is the maple tree which paints the fall season particularly in this area with splendid colours and sustains our famous maple sugar industry.

Trees and forests in many ways are defining elements of our identity as Canadians. To give an example of Canadians' appreciation for trees and for nature, there were 11.9 million visitors to Canada's national parks in 2009. That number does not include the many people who visit provincial and municipal parks each year as well.

Trees provide us with many of the products we use every day, from the obvious items such as wood for home construction and paper products, to not so obvious things. Nail polish, eyeglass frames and photographic film are all made with products that come from trees.

In addition, our trees and forests provide obvious environmental benefits. They provide valuable protection against land degradation, ultraviolet rays, climate change and help to sustain biodiversity. For some of us on the flat prairie, they actually do stop the wind and give us a break from that as well. It is important to note that about 80% of our aboriginal communities are in forested areas.

The majority of the forest land in Canada is publicly owned. Less than 1% of Canada's forests is harvested annually. These working forests help to sustain tens of thousands of jobs in hundreds of communities across Canada.

Our government clearly recognizes the importance of the forest sector to the Canadian economy. The industry's contribution to our gross domestic product is a significant 1.7%. The Prime Minister has spoken about the importance of this industry to Canada. The federal government has made a number of key investments to support Canada's forest sector as the industry undergoes important restructuring due to competitive and market challenges.

We continue to directly support forestry programming in a variety of areas, including things as diverse as marketing, innovation, community development, environmental and green energy development as well.

Our support includes things such as the $1 billion pulp and paper green transformation program, which is part of our economic action plan. This program is helping pulp and paper mills in all regions across the country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while assisting them in becoming leaders in the production of renewable energy from biomass.

As well, as part of the economic action plan, a total of $170 million is supporting market diversification and innovation initiatives for the forestry sector. This includes things like research and demonstration projects. In addition, the community adjustment fund injected funds into the forest-dependent communities affected by the global economic downturn. Financial support is also provided to the sector through the activities of Export Development Canada.

As is the case with many industries, changing conditions present new challenges for the forest sector. That is why we are seeing mills in the forest sector being transformed. They are no longer just producing pulp and paper. They are becoming biorefineries; they are using wood fibres to make a wide range of new products, from nanomaterials to biomaterials; and they are creating more clean energy.

Our most recent budget committed another $100 million to assist the sector with the green transformation that is well under way. The forest industry transformation program will assist this green revolution by facilitating the development, commercialization and implementation of advanced clean energy technologies in the forest sector.

I want to assure members that the Government of Canada is well aware that the sustainable management of our forests is critical to the survival of forests and trees and to the prosperity of forest-dependent communities. Sustainable forestry management is not just an idea or an ideal in Canada, it is actually a reality.

Something I did not know is that almost 40% of the total forest land in Canada is subject already to varying degrees of protection, including 8% that is already protected by legislation. As well, by law, all forests harvested on Canada's public lands must be successfully regenerated.

By December 2009, more than 142 million hectares of Canada's forests were certified as being sustainably managed by one or more of the three globally recognized certification standards. Although the future of our forests is something that Canadians cherish in their local communities, the forest sector also plays an important role globally.

In fact, the United Nations General Assembly has actually declared 2011 the International Year of Forests. The goal of this declaration is to raise awareness and to promote global action to sustainably manage, conserve and develop all types of forests worldwide, including trees outside of forests.

Supporting today's motion is a great way to showcase our country's recognition, appreciation and commitment to trees and forests and to sustainable forest management. If the motion passes, our inaugural National Tree Day would coincide with the International Year of Forests.

As members here know, we currently celebrate Maple Leaf Day, but in order to raise awareness of our Canadian forests, the member for Ottawa—Orléans feels that replacing Maple Leaf Day with National Tree Day will only build on our exceptional reputation.

Tree Canada, the organizers of Maple Leaf Day, support this initiative, as do the Canadian Forestry Association and the Canadian Institute of Forestry. National Tree Day would reinforce the objectives of National Forest Week: to celebrate Canada's forests, our sustainability efforts, and our innovative industry. I think we can all agree with these objectives.

I see my time is winding down, so before we leave, I would like to make a friendly amendment.

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “September 22” and substituting the following: “the Wednesday in the last full week of September”.

[The Environment, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the environmental challenges of developing the oil sands. We are working with all levels of government and with the industry to ensure those are dealt with.

However, what I cannot understand is there are over 120,000 direct and indirect jobs associated with the oil sands across the country and I do not know why the member would be opposing that important part of our economy.

[The Environment, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that annoys the Bloc more than anything is that this government is able to work with everyone. We are able to work with the provinces. We are able to work with industry.

The Bloc just cannot seem to understand that we are working for the future. We are developing future policy in terms of environmental issues and in terms of dealing with natural resources. At every turn, the Bloc opposes each of those steps.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member comes late to the debate. He knows full well that the majority of western Canadian farmers want choice. If he understood farming at all in western Canada, he would understand the necessity for it.

I would also like to address the fact that the member cannot seem to get along with anyone, and he certainly cannot co-operate with western Canadian farmers.

The Forest Products Association actually sent a letter to his leader asking if the NDP shared his view that Canada's forest products industry is neither sustainable nor environmentally sound. It went on to say that the tone and nature of his questions at committee are completely unacceptable and serve only to perpetuate a stereotypical view of the industry that has been dealt with 10 years ago. They are asking the member's leader to repudiate his views.

[Hydroelectricity, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has no interest in building Canada or building positive construction in Canada.

PPP was put in place at arm's-length from the government in order to encourage provinces to come forward with projects. The government is going to consider those projects. Quebec has the same opportunity as every other province to bring forward projects to PPP, and we welcome it because we want to work with the provinces as we have done in the past and will continue to do in the future.

[Hydroelectricity, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that question was answered yesterday and it has been answered again today by our House leader.

The government created Public-Private Partnerships Canada to ensure Canada's infrastructure needs are met while also protecting taxpayers' money. It is a crown corporation that operates at arm's-length from the federal government. Any province is able and capable of making submissions under the PPP proposal.

[Natural Resources, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to the safe, responsible and sustainable development of Canada's natural resources.

However, I can say today why the member is not asking a question on forestry. The Forest Products Association of Canada sent out a letter today to his leader, commenting on the comments of Mr. Martin of Winnipeg Centre the other day in committee. It says:

[He] repeatedly showed a complete lack of understanding and appreciation for Canada's forest products...[His] opening comments would indicate that he believed he should be elsewhere performing more important duties than addressing the challenges facing Canada's forest products...

It asks the member opposite's leader to state unequivocally that those views were not shared by the party. Would he stand up and say that?

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite probably knows the law and knows the requirements of those law in this situation. I think he is well aware of that. However, I can again go over the kinds of things the Investment Canada Act requires the minister to consider in making his decision. I know these are the things that he considered, things like the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in our country, the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in that new business, the effect the investment would have on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, those kinds of things, the effect of investment on competition, the compatibility of the investment with national policies and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability.

He knows full well that there is a 30-day period and we cannot comment beyond that. I am not sure why he would try to bring out that comment. It was clear last night that his own leader did not understand the requirements of the act. Hopefully the Liberals understand that a bit better today than they did last night.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to talk about something else, and that is credibility on this issue. The NDP does not have credibility on this issue. It does not have credibility on the issue of foreign investment. It certainly has no credibility on the issue of trade deals. It absolutely has no credibility in the province of Saskatchewan and what has happened there. It was been in power so long that it pretty much destroyed our economy. It has taken this federal government, working together with Saskatchewan, to get it back on track.

We came in on a platform that we would build Canada. We have been able to do that. We have come through one of the thoughest times in the last number of decades. Because of the great leadership provided by the Prime Minister, we have been able to build Canada's strength in the economy. Every one of those things was opposed by the NDP.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Blackstrap for splitting her time with me today on this important issue.

Last night, the Minister of Industry determined that the BHP proposal to purchase PotashCorp was in his opinion not likely to be a net benefit to Canada.

For weeks we have heard the member for Wascana rant and rave. We have heard the opposition use ever more inflammatory language, with a lack of understanding of both the process and common sense. Last night the Minister of Industry kept a cool head. He weighed the facts and made his decision.

I want to say today that Canada is open for business. Canada's economy needs foreign investment. Interestingly, Canadian firms invest more money outside of Canada than foreign firms invest here. We live in a world in which Canada has strong economic fundamentals. I would argue that this is in part due to our economic action plan and to the great leadership of the Prime Minister. Our companies are better able to compete abroad. We cannot and we must not close the door to foreign investment.

Our government was elected on the platform of standing up for Canada, and we will fulfill that commitment.

Under 13 years of Liberal rule, the Liberals ignored the west. Yet in the past few weeks, the Member for Wascana seems to have forgotten that.

While we had one member from Saskatchewan promoting his own interests, we had thirteen members from Saskatchewan working with the government to promote the best interests of Saskatchewan.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, he cannot even get along with his own colleagues in the province. This is basically the rule of thumb for how things operate there for him: he is in disagreement with his own provincial Liberal leader about the position that he took.

I have also been surprised at some of the comments made about my own colleagues. They are made by people who, in many cases, do not even bother to call and talk to us. There are some people who think that unless there is division and dissension nothing is getting done. I can say that nothing is further from the truth.

There is another story that needs to be told. There are 13 MPs here who are able to work together, who are used to working together. We bring 13 different perspectives, 13 different histories, to the House. We bring 13 different opinions to our discussions. The folks whom I work with from the Saskatchewan caucus bring a team attitude. They set their individual egos aside for the betterment of our province. It is a group that can carry a unified message and is willing to present a unified front when we bring our ideas to caucus and to the government.

I am proud to be part of this group. I am proud to work with them. One of the reasons I am proud is that this approach has worked for Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has benefited from this group of MPs. There has been consistent leadership in Parliament and in our party. Over the last few years, we have brought forward a balanced platform of tax cuts, a balanced stimulus package, a well-organized economic action plan, and a focus on strengthening our economy.

That is one of the things that has made our province a leader in the country. Others look to Saskatchewan for leadership. It is not an accident that this has happened since a Conservative government has come to power in Ottawa.

The former Liberal government approved every single one of the applications for foreign takeovers. It never challenged any of them. Our government believes strongly in foreign investment, but a vital part of the deal is that it must be of benefit to Canada. We need take no lessons from the member for Wascana.

Furthermore, we could see last night, if we were watching TV, that his leader has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how Investment Canada acts and how foreign investment works in this country. This is strange, because there has been a foreign takeover taking place in the Liberal Party for the last five years. We would think Liberals would know a little more about it than they seem to.

The government recognizes that, although foreign investment is generally to the benefit of the host country, there may be instances where a given transaction, according to the present legislation, upon close and diligent scrutiny, is determined not to be beneficial.

I would like to talk about the Investment Canada Act. To ensure that significant acquisitions of Canadian enterprises by foreign companies are of net benefit to Canada, the Investment Canada Act requires that the Minister of Industry examine and approve a proposed investment before it can be made.

Under the present act, the minister must be satisfied, based on the plans, undertakings, and other representations of the investor, that the investment provides a net benefit to Canada. In making the determination, the Minister of Industry must consider the following factors: the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business; the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation, and product variety in Canada; the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; the compatibility of the investment with national, industrial, economic, and cultural policies; and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.

This process and this act require that significant foreign investments are of net benefit to Canada. That is only half the story. I want to talk about the many associate benefits that Canada reaps when Canadian businesses make investment abroad.

Until the 1970s, certain branches of economics viewed outward foreign direct investment as generally detrimental, particularly with respect to economic growth in capital-exporting countries. Large enterprises investing outside their home countries were thought to be depriving the home country of economic growth and employment. Thankfully, we now know that this is an inadequate perspective.

Nowadays, Canadian investment abroad contributes to a more dynamic and competitive economy both in other countries and at home. To be more specific, I am going to go through a few points about our foreign investment. Data show that the growth, productivity, and profit from Canadian firms involved in global markets has been superior to the performance of domestically oriented firms. Income from Canada's foreign direct investment increased sharply with the increase of outward foreign investment. Direct investment income averaged $6 billion between 1990 and 1996, almost $2 billion more than between 1985 and 1989, and that directly helped to improve our standard of living.

The growth of Canadian investment abroad leads to an increase in exports, and this directly affects Canada's economic health. Exports account for more than one-third of our gross domestic product. They are the path to future growth and continued competitiveness in the global marketplace. No one knows this more than the folks in my part of the world who grow agricultural products.

Investment abroad offers Canadian high tech companies better access to foreign skills and foreign technologies. It also increases research and development in Canada, which in turn leads to innovation, expanded market potential, and better employment opportunities for highly educated workers.

The spillover effects benefit companies that are not necessarily investing abroad themselves.

We cannot shut the Canadian economy off from foreign investment, as the NDP and the coalition seem to want. The benefits are too great. We must be vigilant. We must make sure that the net benefit of a transaction is, in fact, a net benefit to Canadians. That does not mean building a 60-foot wall, as the coalition would like to see, as the current NDP leader in particular would have us believe is necessary.

As a small economy, we welcome foreign investment because it is an important economic driver. Foreign investment contributes to our economy and is absolutely critical. The trend toward globalization and foreign investment provides many benefits to Canada, and it is important to adopt policies that encourage trade and investment. That is what Canadians expect, and that is what our government will deliver.