Hélène LeBlanc

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Liberal member's speech and I am a bit confused. The Liberals were supporting Bill C-15 at second reading. It now seems they have changed their minds. In his last response, the Liberal member also mentioned that the constitutionality of the bill had to be tested and all the rest.

I wonder why they did not move any amendments at committee. I am a bit confused. First, what is their current position? Second, why did they not propose any amendments? They seemed to agree with the amendments proposed by the NDP and they supported them, but, for their part, they made no proposals to improve the bill. Now, all of a sudden, they are putting forward a whole host of ideas at third reading.

Could the hon. member shed some light on those questions?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I always pay close attention to his way of seeing things and presenting them.

Could he speak to the fact that we have before us a bill from the Senate? If this is one of the government's priorities, why does the bill not come from the House of Commons? Let us move on to something else.

In budget after budget, the amounts for public safety agencies have been significantly reduced.

Could he comment on the disconnect between what the government says and what it does?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very perceptive question and especially for pointing out one of the problems caused by Bill S-7.

When bills are introduced, we have to work on them and consider all their potential consequences. It is scandalous that experts appeared before the committee, amendments were proposed and that, once again, the government turned a deaf ear. That is a problem.

We identified serious flaws in this bill. The government must absolutely go back to the drawing board.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Since 2001, the provisions in the bill that was passed in the wake of September 11, 2011, have never been used. That is a clear response to my colleague's question. These provisions have not been used. We have enough tools already. I believe that investigators have the tools they need to do their jobs.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am confused and concerned as I rise in this House today to speak on Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, as the Conservatives call it.

I am confused because the government expressed no intention of putting this piece of legislation back on the agenda. It had instead opted to have successive opposition days. As a result, I have some serious questions about the real reasons we are debating this bill right now. I am not the only one. This morning, The Globe and Mail stated:

The two-day debate in Parliament on the...government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation smacks of political opportunism, and it is regrettable that it will take place.

The editorial concluded:

More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens.

I am also concerned as I rise in the House because, regardless of what arguments the opposition puts forward, their arguments will be twisted around and demolished by the Conservatives, who, instead of debating this issue, want to use this time to get their message out.

First of all, I would like to start by defining terrorism and talking about how it has evolved over time. My research opened my eyes, especially to the motives of perpetrators of acts of terrorism, motives that are not always fully known to us, contrary to what we may often think.

Terrorism goes back a number of centuries, and the term was particularly used after the fall of Robespierre in France to refer to the reign of terror in 1793 and 1794. The dictionary continues to define it as the systematic employment of violence to achieve a political goal.

The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as the calculated use of unlawful violence, or the threat of unlawful violence, to inculcate fear intended to coerce or intimidate governments or society in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.

The Department of State continues by saying that acts of terrorism are often perpetrated against civilian—or non-combatant—targets.

Terrorism dates back to antiquity, when groups used systematic assassinations to spread fear and promote their cause. As I already mentioned, it was after the French Revolution that the government at the time used a climate of terror to take down its opponents. Even now, this type of terrorism is used and institutionalized by governments. The rise of nationalism during the last century exacerbated instances of terrorism. Terrorism has gone global and we are seeing a change in the types of terrorism and in the groups or individuals who are conducting these activities.

How can we combat terrorism in Canada, especially as this bill proposes to do?

We must know what kind of terrorism Canada has experienced in recent decades. In Terrorisme et antiterrorisme au Canada, the authors state:

The threat of terrorism—meaning the probability that a highly destructive incident will take place in Canada—is practically non-existent....

For several reasons, it is ridiculous to think that Canada can prevent terrorist attacks, although we can certainly prepare for emergencies and develop strategies to minimize destruction and provide assistance to victims. Some plots will be foiled. However, this is very rare and when we look at the plots that have recently been uncovered in Canada and the United States, we cannot help but notice that they are amateur in nature and have a slim possibility of being successful. First, the evolution of international terrorism must be taken into consideration. Instances of truly international attacks (instigated, financed or run remotely from outside the target country) have been considerably declining in the past ten years. The fact that they are so rare means that they are too unpredictable to be prevented: there is no pattern or detectable model. However, most acts of terrorism in western countries are carried out by individuals born in the country they are attacking or by naturalized citizens. These people are recently radicalized and ill-prepared. This means that their actions tend to be uncommon...and organized quickly—also difficult to detect in advance. Second, since there is a nearly infinite number of vulnerable targets in a country like ours, it is not a good idea to focus on protection. There is no way to prepare...

Bill S-7 is not the right way to go about combatting terrorism. The bill reintroduces measures that have proven to be unjustified and ineffective in the past. Over the weekend in The Globe and Mail, Doug Saunders described the silence following a tragedy like the one in Boston, and how politicians try to fill that silence:

...we point to the neglected menaces and failures within our own society, we raise our security and perhaps lower our tolerance for reduced civil liberties, and in the process we allow a new political moment to take shape.

Further on, he also says that major attacks against civilians are extremely rare, but every time they occur, they seem to have the same effects and elicit the same reactions: confusion, horror, fear and profound sympathy for the victims, who are all too numerous in tragedies like this.

However, I do not believe it was those reactions that pushed the Conservatives to bring back Bill S-7, which will not fight terrorism but is simply an example of political opportunism. Our laws already fight terrorism. Terrorism is a crime, and we already have laws in place to bring to justice those who plot or commit acts of terrorism. This bill is useless and will not combat terrorism in Canada.

I should add that this government has a very strange way of addressing safety. In the 2012 budget and budgets before that—and those that are to come, I imagine—it announced considerable reductions of $687.9 million to public safety, whether it was at the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the RCMP.

That is a strange way of addressing public safety. The Conservatives come up with a bill like this one, which is completely useless, while their actions run completely counter to protecting and increasing public safety in Canada.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to hear what he has to say about this government's measures. On the one hand, the government is advocating law and order and says that it wants to combat terrorism. On the other hand, particularly in budget 2012 and successive budgets, it has made significant cuts to public safety.

Could he elaborate on this?

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Canadians have their say on this agreement and that, as the NDP requested, the parliamentary committee undertake an in-depth study of the agreement before it is ratified. It is important to consider the experience of other countries that are negotiating with China in order to have a broader perspective of the issue.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reiterating the importance of further debating this agreement that will bind us to China for a number of years.

Holding a debate to finally shed some light on this issue is an NDP initiative.

It is important to poll Canadians, as well as Canadian investors in China, on the agreement to see if there truly is reciprocity.

Again, I thank the hon. member for reiterating what I said about Canadians losing trust in the government's ability to negotiate in the public interest.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not really ask a question. However, I will repeat what I already said in my speech.

It is very important to fully review this treaty. We have asked that it be examined in a parliamentary committee so that experts can testify, because it raises some serious concerns for us.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

It is with determination that I rise in the House to defend the official opposition motion on the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement between Canada and China. Let me say from the outset that I realize that Canada has always benefited from trade agreements and I recognize the growing significance of emerging countries in these trade relations.

That being said, I will comment on the fact that Canadians' confidence in this government has been breached when it comes to negotiating agreements that have their best interests at heart, namely transparency, reciprocity, equality, and protecting jobs, the environment and communities.

I will draw a parallel between the Prime Minister's recent decision to support the acquisition of two Canadian companies by foreign state-owned corporations—the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC and Progress Energy by Petronas—and the confusion that was created within the investment community as to this government's intentions with regard to foreign investment in Canada.

Throughout the evaluation process of these acquisitions, and according to the Investment Canada Act, the Conservatives turned a deaf ear to Canadians' concerns and refused to consult them. The Prime Minister made his decision behind closed doors, as he did for the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement between Canada and China. No parliamentary committee will conduct a comprehensive study, despite the NDP's repeated pleas.

In its recent report entitled Foreign Direct Investment and the National Interest: A Way Forward, the Institute for Research on Public Policy condemns the fact that the current government did not reassess the country's investment policies and, what is more, created confusion by introducing the concept of “exceptional circumstances”. The report also outlines Canadians' priorities.

[The net benefit test] should explicitly include references to the effect of the foreign investment on opportunities for Canadian management; benefits and compatibility to trade, fiscal and environmental policies; its potential contribution to advancing Canadian international trade and investment objectives (such as reciprocity); and, for completeness, its possible effect on national security. In addition, the description of some of the existing benefits should be clarified.

Again and again the government has refused to have a profound review of the Investment Canada Act. It is the same with this agreement.

I state here that the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, FIPA, is a bad deal for Canada. Frankly, the whole thing exposes the Conservatives' rigid tunnel vision ideology when it comes to economic growth. We have to understand that not every trade deal is a good deal. This deal would tie the hands of Canadian provincial governments. It would expose taxpayers to major liabilities, and ultimately, it would not help Canadian investors break into China's market.

We can do better. We must do better.

Let us examine FIPA a bit more closely. In the explanatory note, we see that the agreement remains in force for a period of 15 years. After this period, either party may at any time terminate it, but for investments made prior to that date, the provisions of the agreement remain in force for a further 15 years.

Let us look also at article 6, on national treatment:

Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investment in its territory.

This means that it must be allowed to expand its operations as if it were a Canadian company.

Let us examine some of the barriers to foreign investment in China, and I will refer again to the IRPP study. When Canadian investors want to invest in China, they have to go through laws and regulations, and this states some of the names of the laws and regulations in China:

Laws and regulations governing foreign investment include the “Circular of the General Office of the State Council on Establishment of Security Review System Regarding Merger and Acquisition of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors” and “Provisions of the Ministry of Commerce for the Implementation of the Security Review System”.

This report says,

Chinese authorities enjoy broad discretionary power to reject transactions, particularly on national security grounds.

As we see, there are a lot of hurdles for Canadian investors investing in China.

Let us briefly compare China and Canada. In 2011, Canada invested $4.5 billion in China. In contrast, China invested $11 billion, that is to say more than twice as much as Canada. That can be explained by a difference in market size.

This figure more than doubled in 2012, when investors from the People's Republic of China invested over $22.9 billion in order to take over, merge with or enter into joint ventures with Canadian companies. Clearly, Canadian investment in China is not in the same league as Chinese investment in Canada.

Let us continue our comparison. Canada is a market economy and China is not. Canada is part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, and China is not. In addition, despite inherent differences between the two governments, Canada has strengthened its diplomatic and trade relations with China over the years, which is important.

However, we must understand that these are two very different economies and governments. It is sort of like having a hockey team play against a soccer team, each with its own set of rules and differences. As a result, there was a need for negotiations to be able to create a level playing field.

As I said in the beginning, Canadians have lost trust in the government when it comes to negotiating in a transparent and honest fashion in the best interests of Canadians. The Conservative government has not shown that it can negotiate agreements that are in the best interests of Canadians. Every time, it lacked transparency, it created confusion by refusing to have clear and transparent rules and it refused to hold consultations and to assess the short- and long-term implications of the ratification of agreements or transactions that will have an impact on our institutions and economy.

For all those reasons, the government should inform the Government of the People's Republic of China that it will not ratify the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement.