David McGuinty

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we could spend our time going over what happened 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. But instead, I would rather deal with the issue before us today. How can we achieve progress for Canadians in this area? For example, where are we generally headed as a country in the energy sector?

That is why in my speech I highlighted the need to create both a national energy strategy and a real national climate change strategy. The two are closely related. You cannot have one without the other.

So for me, the real issue is not about looking to the past, but about looking to the future. As parliamentarians, how will we go about improving the situation in Canada?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the odds are not quite even when it comes to this kind of acquisition and looking for reciprocity with the Chinese authorities.

I believe that China is a state in full transition. It has come a million miles in the last two decades and is making progress as we speak. It is struggling under the weight of a country that has 400 million to 500 million people living on approximately $8 a day. So, it has its internal challenges.

I do think there is a lot of possibility here for negotiation between Canada and China. However, I do not want to single out China. I am sure my colleague does not want to either. There are many countries that will be looking very closely at Canada's natural resource sector and, for that matter, at Canada's water resources going forward. How we treat each and every one of these applications is what is really at question here.

We need to ensure that this will be of benefit to Canadians, Canadian shareholders, Canadian companies but Canadians writ large and Canadian jobs in particular. We need to be vigilant that the jobs are here. There are enough jobs moving offshore from North America into southeast Asia right now.

My view is that the financial services sector is one possibility, the manufacturing sector is a second, the tourism sector is yet a third and there are others. This is exactly what we should be examining in detail in committee.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my NDP colleague that the institution called the House of Commons spends almost $500 million a year—that is $500 million.

In my opinion, the work that must be done on this should be done in the Standing Committee on Industry. We have already invested in the committee, in its members and staff, and everything is in place. As for the question of expressing the points of view of Canadian society, I think that can be done in the committee. Instead of holding consultations outside the House, we could easily invite people to come here, or use computers and consult people on the Internet, perhaps. We could save taxpayers' money and do what needs to be done.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here this afternoon to address this extremely important opposition day motion put forward by the NDP.

It is an important motion for three reasons. First, it calls for public consultations on a specific deal, the Nexen-CNOOC deal, which is under negotiation. Second, it calls for public hearings into foreign ownership in the Canadian energy sector at large. Third, it calls on Canada and the government to clarify the net benefit test in the Investment Canada Act before a decision is made with respect to this specific transaction.

For the record, the Liberal Party will be supporting this motion, but let us just step back for a few minutes and look at how we got to where we are today.

This proposed acquisition has been in the works for a long time. It follows hard on the heels of the proposed potash deal, which raised so many similar concerns and issues. Both Nexen and CNOOC, as parties to this proposed deal, played by the existing rules, even though they knew that changes to the definition of net benefit under the Investment Canada Act were supposedly forthcoming.

In fact, the Prime Minister stood in his place with a number of front-line cabinet ministers two years ago and promised that a major review of what constituted a net benefit to Canada would be undertaken. It was never done, even in the full knowledge that this and other deals were in full negotiation.

My colleague, the member for Halifax West, our Liberal industry critic, brought a motion to the industry committee almost nine months ago. Let me read it. It is simple and it is direct. He proposed that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology undertake a study of the Investment Canada Act and present a report to the House.

It turns out the committee rightly decided to pursue the study, but we do not really know what was said. Once again, the deliberations were held in camera, behind closed doors. This is a neat little trick pulled by the Conservatives across all committees to censor access to information on a very regular basis.

Since then, nothing. Did the government recall the committee over the summer months to take a crack at the study? No. Did it produce a comparative study of what other countries who have tackled these issues have done? No. Did it identify and make public the salient questions to be addressed beyond the six factors to be taken into account under section 20 of the Investment Canada Act? Absolutely not; so here we are.

Shareholders and the boards of directors of both companies involved have approved the deal. They believe their interests are best served. That is fine. That is as it should be in the free market. However, what we are talking about is Canadian interests, not shareholder interests exclusively.

It is at once the irresponsibility and the incompetence of the Conservative regime that has led us to this point. It is irresponsible and incompetent in the fact that the net benefit test has not been dealt with. It is irresponsible and incompetent in the fact that it has been dispatching the Prime Minister and ministers all over the world to drum up investments from countries such as China in full knowledge that proposed deals like the Nexen one, or any of the several other deals now being worked on in the oil patch, would be highly controversial. It is irresponsible and incompetent in its refusal to answer the questions that Liberals have raised for weeks, either because the Conservatives are afraid to admit they do not have the answers or they are afraid to tell Canadians the truth.

The truth is that Canadians do not have confidence that our interests are being addressed and protected. They have serious concerns and are eager to learn more about this specific deal, its ramifications and its long-term effects on one of our most important natural resource sectors.

The Conservative government promised to revisit the concept of “net benefit to Canada” in the context of foreign takeovers after the rejection of the offer for PotashCorp in October 2010. Because of its inaction, Canada is now facing a wave of foreign takeovers and the rules have not been clarified.

We understand that it is necessary for the government to retain some flexibility to exercise its discretion, since no two deals are identical, but we also believe that foreign takeovers must be done transparently and that Canadians must be informed about the guarantees involved and the reasons a transaction is deemed a net benefit to Canadians.

Let us be very clear: the Liberals are in favour of foreign investment but, since 2006—and especially since 2010—we have been calling for more transparency in foreign takeovers.

The government is not able to provide this transparency and not able to dispel the impression that the process is based on purely political considerations. For the good of our economy and future foreign investments, the rules must be clear.

As I said, the legislation must provide some degree of flexibility because no two deals are the same. Very important questions loom large and need to be answered in order for Canadians to understand what guarantees might be given and why a transaction is deemed of net benefit to Canada.

First, because we have no national energy strategy in this country, as called for by Alberta's premier and by our party for over six years, where does this and other transactions fit into our energy future? Where does it fit into our climate future?

There is no doubt that case after case with respect to our approach to energy will continue to surface, from Keystone to the northern gateway pipeline, another Conservative fiasco according to Jim Prentice, and now this Nexen deal. The Conservatives are lurching from crisis to crisis instead of defining a national energy strategy that includes changing the Investment Canada Act.

I will take a moment to answer the Prime Minister's question when he responded to Premier Redford by saying that when it came to a national energy strategy he had “no idea what she was talking about”. I will enlighten the Prime Minister and let him know what we are talking about.

This is about building on the early and tentative work by provincial and federal ministers in full respect of provincial jurisdiction. It would encompass the following key elements: regulatory reform; energy efficiency; energy information; markets; international trade; smart grid technology; reliability of our electricity system; building codes; building standards; and transportation efficiency.

Furthermore, we should be conducting a full and transparent analysis of federal and provincial programs and fiscal incentives and disincentives applicable specifically to the energy sector in all of its forms: fossil fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear, with a view to facilitating Canada's transition to a low carbon future. That is what the race is all about in the global marketplace.

However, more questions need to be raised. In the energy sector, what should the maximum ownership limits be set at, 49% or no limits? If a company commits to keeping its head office in Canada, what if it does not? Similarly, CNOOC is committing to keep all 3,000 Nexen jobs and its current management team. What if it does not? How are these commitments enforceable? When shall we demand that Canadians be on the board of directors and how many? What about Canadians on the boards of the foreign companies that are targeting Canadian companies?

When we hear about the national security interests raised recently by CSIS, when do these trump a potential deal? What exactly are national security interests? Are they related to information technology? Are they related to trade secrets? Are they related to intellectual property and patents? These things need to be better defined.

How do we treat state owned enterprises versus privately held or publicly traded companies? Should we be factoring in human rights considerations in the country from whence the acquiring company is coming?

What if Canadians have invested in a Canadian enterprise through government support? This might be from direct financial support in the form of programming assistance or it might be fiscal assistance in, for example, the writing off of assets over a shorter period of time but that is an investment made by the Canadian taxpayer in a Canadian company. However, if a company has been supported by Canadian taxpayers in one of these two forms, how should we see that investment in terms of the Canadian people? Should the Canadian taxpayers be indemnified? Should we be asking that Canadian taxpayers get some of their money back?

Another question that this transaction raises, which ought to have been addressed in committee months if not years ago by the government working with all parties, is whether foreign ownership limits by companies or sectors be brought in.

Some estimates show that today in Canada two-thirds of oil sands production is already owned by foreign companies based on shareholders. Should that be a factor? Should that be allowed to continue? Is two-thirds too high, just right or too low? None of this has been subjected to what I would call the light of evidence and analysis in a good working place like, for example, the industry committee.

Another important question that Canadians are asking about this transaction is whether can Canadians invest in the country where the buyer comes from? If not, what should we be looking to ask for? What should we be looking to leverage from that country? For example, some have said in this case that Canada ought to be demanding better access to the financial services sector so that Canadian banks, for example, can expand their operations in what is clearly a huge market.

I have another question. Will there be full compliance with Canadian labour and environmental laws? What conditions should be met with respect to enhancing community and social commitments?

It is clear that the issue of enforceability weaves its way through each and every one of those questions. Those questions are fundamental to our jobs, innovation, technologies, patents and intellectual property. They are fundamental to the deployment of Canadian capital, to growing and maintaining our expertise in our trades, in our management and, yes, even in our ownership. Those questions are also fundamental to whether Canada's companies will compete in global markets. However, all those questions have not seen the light of day despite the promise made by the government.

Now we find ourselves in a situation where Canada is being squeezed. Actually, the Prime Minister and his ministers are being squeezed because they have gone all over the world telling people that we are open for business. They have said, “come one, come all, everything is for sale at the highest price”. However, we now face a situation where it is going into the secrecy of cabinet, where the net benefit test is not working as it is presently construed under the act, and we are in a situation now where Canada is vulnerable.

I would suggest that all parties come together in the industry committee, support my colleague's motion for a major study on this question and come back with enlightened information for all parliamentarians to learn from so that we can set the right net benefit test for Canadians going forward.

[Petitions, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of many Ottawa residents who are urging the government to reinstate funding to the community access program. Sadly, the Conservative government is disconnecting Canadians from their communities, business opportunities and government services. They are shutting people out of the online conversations that are shaping our society.

I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of many local residents.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to government announcements, what were the: (a) travel and accommodation costs, including those of staff members or other government employees; and (b) other costs, associated with the following meetings or other events, held on or around June 4, 2012, concerning the “Plan for Responsible Resource Development,” namely those meetings or events held by (i) the President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario in Thunder Bay, Ontario, (ii) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) the Minister of Finance in Toronto, Ontario, (iv) the Minister of Industry in Montreal, Quebec, (v) the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (vi) the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) in Edmonton, Alberta, (vii) the Minister of Public Works and Government Services in Calgary, Alberta, (viii) the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in Surrey, British Columbia, (ix) the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada in St. John's, Newfoundland, (x) any of the persons named in (i) through (ix) in any other location?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to federal real property, what is the name and file number of any report, study, or other documentation, prepared since January 1, 2006, concerning practices with regard to (i) the naming or re-naming federal government buildings, properties, facilities, structures, institutions, establishments, or ships, (ii) the naming or re-naming of any particular federal government buildings, properties, facilities, structures, institutions, establishments, or ships?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to government libraries: (^a) since January 1, 2012, which departments or agencies have closed, or will be closing, their departmental or agency libraries; (b) what is the rationale for each closure; (c) what evaluations, studies, or assessments were conducted and used to make the decision to close; (d) what are the dates and file numbers of those evaluations, studies, or assessments; (e) what are the plans for the disposition of the holdings of the libraries; (f) what evaluations, studies, or assessments were conducted and used to make decisions concerning the disposition of holdings; and (g) what are the dates and file numbers of those evaluations, studies, or assessments?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 17th, 2012]

With respect to the United Nations Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan: (a) when was the Minister of International Cooperation first informed of the corruption within the fund and what briefing notes were prepared for the Minister regarding the situation; (b) which additional Cabinet Ministers were informed of the corruption within the fund and what briefing notes were prepared for the additional Cabinet Ministers regarding the situation; (c) what steps did the government take upon hearing of the corruption within the fund; (d) what Canadian oversight measures were in place to ensure that Canada’s financial contribution to the fund was used in an accountable manner since 2002; and (e) what meetings have been held concerning the fund, and what was the date and location of those meetings?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to participate in this debate today. This is a really important issue for Canadians and for our communities.

I want to commend the member who has put forward Bill C-394 as a very sincere and thoughtful effort to do something about the proliferation of gangs and gang membership across Canadian society. I think it is a very well-motivated and good-faith initiative.

It tries to make it an offence to recruit, solicit, encourage or even invite a person to join a criminal organization. It would change the penalties if such a person did join a criminal organization. That is where we part ways with the member and the government. It is with respect to their position in this regard.

We strongly support efforts to combat and criminalize the recruitment of individuals, particularly young people, into gangs and criminal organizations. However, we are just as strongly opposed to mandatory minimum penalties. Studies everywhere on the planet prove that such sentences do not deter criminals or make Canadians safer.

However, we do support in the bill the expansion of the definition of “criminal organization offence” to include gang recruitment. This, we believe, would be a very good step toward dealing with our challenge, which is improving the situation of gangs and gang membership.

As I said, we are alarmed about the increasing number of Canadians, particularly young people, who are recruited into gangs. We support the criminalization of this activity.

However, with regard to this question of mandatory minimum sentences for gang recruitment, all the evidence from Canada, the United States, state by state by state; New Zealand; Australia; the United Kingdom; and everywhere this has been tried is overwhelmingly that mandatory minimums do not work. They are ineffective. They are often constitutionally challenged. They are problematic, because they remove the discretion from judges, who are best placed to assess the situation based on the evidence and the facts of the case in front of him or her.

We also know that mandatory minimums do not deter crime.

On the other hand, we know for sure that what mandatory minimums do is increase recidivism. They actually make it more likely that a person who gets a mandatory minimum sentence comes back and offends again. How can that be good when we are talking about dealing with young people, in particular?

Half of gang membership in Canada is under the age of 18. When we increase recidivism, we get into a vicious circle that in turn increases crime. That has a more discriminatory impact on more vulnerable groups, notably, in Canada, our aboriginal young people, among whom gang recruitment is higher than it is in other parts of our society.

In my own community of Ottawa South, I deal with community police officers all the time. These are front-line officers, men and women, who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with so-called hot spots. All of us as members of Parliament deal with these in our ridings, particularly in urban spaces.

They tell us that the ticket now, the key, is to get to kids between the ages of 8 and 12. That is the time to get to kids with activities, particularly post-school activities, that keep them on the right track.

Let us talk about that for a second. What are the circumstances that lead kids, young people in particular, to join gangs?

We know it is linked to, for example, neighbourhood crime. We know it is directly linked to poverty levels. We know it is partly about peer pressure and peer influence.

We know it is sometimes about the lack of vigilance by parents, teachers and community members and leaders. We know it has to do with a lack of opportunities for positive after-school recreation programs, for example, or homework clubs. We know it is linked to substance abuse and alcohol use. We know that this is altogether tied into a large challenge.

We think the government should be investing more in activities that engage our kids, rather than forcing mandatory minimums on judges and then downloading to the provinces the responsibility to build more jails. By the way, that is a strategy that was tried in Texas and California. Is it not interesting that the governors of both of those states have now publicly denounced that experiment? In California, the state legislature is now struggling with the weight of the cost of prisons. This is a huge part of California's teetering right now on the verge of bankruptcy.

Liberals believe that we should be investing more in soccer fields and music groups and in making our recreational spaces more available for kids. It is not a bad idea, especially when we are dealing with a childhood obesity epidemic and all kinds of health challenges related to sedentary lifestyles.

We are alarmed by the increase in the number of kids joining gangs. We support the provisions of the bill that actually go a ways in criminalizing the recruitment of kids. However, we just do not understand the government's fixation on mandatory minimums. We know that it is a narrative the government uses for its base, but it flies in the face of all experience. It flies in the face of our community policing. Front-line officers tell us that it is not working. We are scratching our heads and asking why the government wants to spend all this money on incarceration, when we know that every dollar we spend up front saves us $40 afterwards in terms of costs for criminal enforcement, incarceration, parole and beyond.

We think the bill is good in a halfway respect, but unfortunately, it goes the wrong way when it comes to mandatory minimums. As a result, we will not be supporting this bill.