Hélène LeBlanc

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is with a rather heavy heart that I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-38.

Not only do I oppose the content of this bill, but I also strongly oppose how the government has gone about getting it through the House.

I was very idealistic when I arrived in the House of Commons barely a year ago. I truly believed in the goodwill of this government, which had just been elected to do politics differently. I realize that the reality is altogether different and that the government wants to push through bills of this magnitude without consultation or consideration by committees and the House.

I oppose this bill because I believe it will have serious consequences not just on jobs, but also on growth and long-term prosperity. In fact, this government is not investing in the economy of the future, but rather in the economy of the past.

In my opinion, this bill is not in the best interest of Canadians and does not reflect the fact that the government must work for the common good.

Canada must foster economic development in a way that respects the principle of sustainable development and promotes the development of our communities and our environment.

It is with this in mind that the NDP has been calling on the government for several years now to reform and modernize the Investment Canada Act, one of the main components of our economic regulatory system. I am talking about it today because this bill includes changes to the Investment Canada Act.

Although the NDP has been calling for an overhaul of the Investment Canada Act for several years, and although a motion was unanimously adopted by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to review the Investment Canada Act—I am on that committee, so I should know—this has not been done. Instead, the government continues to hide certain changes to that act within this omnibus bill.

Thus, with so many things going on, the government is modifying the Investment Canada Act bit by bit and without really carefully studying the consequences this will have on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

The government promised to tighten up the Investment Canada Act a long time ago, but I am disappointed that it has decided to include these changes in the budget implementation bill, instead of going ahead with the consultations it had promised.

The act will now enable the government to disclose the reasons why it would oppose a foreign acquisition, but the act already sets out some exceptions. The government will first have to consult the company in question and refrain from disclosing the reasons why it opposes the purchase if it would cause prejudice to the company. The changes included in Bill C-38 will also allow a penalty in the form of a security, and not just money, to be imposed on firms found to violate a country's legislation.

The government's proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act are only minor corrections, when we consider the scope of the challenges.

The biggest amendment made to the act by the government was not made through Bill C-38 but through the regulations. So it is appropriate that I mention it in the context of this speech, given that the government continues to make amendments to the act without going through Parliament or the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which would be the appropriate forum.

When foreign investors are buying a Canadian company, an assessment is conducted under the Investment Canada Act. The assessment threshold is currently $300 million, depending on the value of the company's assets. On May 25, 2012, the Minister of Industry announced that, in four years, the threshold would increase to $1 billion, depending on the value of the business. This new measure was based on the recommendations of a committee that submitted a report in June 2008 entitled "Compete to Win". I note that it was not the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that made these recommendations or a committee of parliamentarians, but an ad hoc committee, if I may call it that.

This announcement will have fairly significant consequences on the possibility of keeping Canadian companies, especially the medium-sized or larger companies, because there will be no review under the Investment Canada Act.

The Globe and Mail recently published an in-depth report on the disappearance of Canada's medium-sized businesses. Canada has many small businesses, but we seem to be losing more and more of our medium-sized businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

These announcements and changes to the Investment Canada Act were made—I repeat—without MPs' approval and with no real discussion by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. They will have negative consequences on several sectors of our economy and on Canada's ability to help medium-sized businesses thrive and to keep them in our economy.

Long-term prosperity means long-term jobs. Helping our manufacturing sector to flourish, particularly medium-sized businesses in that sector, is in Canada's best interest. These industries take root in their communities and become active partners in the regions. They will provide long-term jobs, which lead to long-term growth and prosperity.

This is troubling. The government keeps talking about 750,000 new jobs, but let us take a closer look at that number. Those 750,000 jobs have been created since the lowest point of the recession following the loss of 430,000 jobs during the recession. That means we have about 320,000 net new jobs since the beginning of the recession. Yet the number of people in the job market grew by approximately 600,000 during that period. That is why our unemployment rate is still much higher than it was before the recession. It is currently 7.3%.

We are not currently creating enough jobs to keep pace with growth.

I could go on at length about how this bill will have negative consequences on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, an article from the National Post states:

The sight of oil oozing into an Alberta river from a leaky pipeline is a visual the Conservatives could have done without, as their omnibus budget bill reached Parliament for a final vote. They must be praying no one finds any oil-covered ducks.

The bill, among other things, makes it easier to gain approval to build pipelines under rivers, similar to the Plains Midstream Canada pipeline currently spilling oil into the Red Deer River.

I want to ask the member how this bill would help monitor and enforce pipeline security to avoid oil spills in—

[Transboundary Waters Protection Act, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, according to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, Canadians use an average of 300 litres of water a day. Three hundred litres a day when, according to one report, the world average is 20 litres per day.

Of the 16 OECD countries, only Americans consume more water than Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada gave Canada a D for its feeble efforts to conserve its water resources.

If it seems we have an insatiable thirst for water, our thirst for energy and profit is just as bad. It takes 3 to 4.5 barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen. This figure does not include the water that is used to refine the crude oil. Shale gas uses 4,000 cubic metres of water for each step of the hydraulic fracturing process, not to mention the other types of energy we use.

Southern Canada's streams, lakes and rivers are polluted. Municipal waste water infrastructure cannot meet the demand. Waste water that is untreated or that has received only primary or secondary treatment is dumped into our watersheds. This has disastrous consequences for aquatic life and the entire ecosystem. Urbanization and surface impermeability also have an impact by increasing the amount of polluted water that runs off into waterways or is directed to overburdened infrastructure. The intensification of agriculture has also increased the erosion of farmland and agricultural runoff, which carries sediment that is high in phosphorous. As a result, cyanobacterial blooms are suffocating our lakes and waterways.

This is what Canada is doing with one of our greatest resources, which is now called blue gold. Canada has a large percentage of the earth's drinking water, 9% of which is considered renewable. Some of that water is trapped in glaciers, which, by the way, are melting into the oceans. An abundance of precipitation means that this resource is renewable in part. However, water is not like other resources. It is essential for life, like the air we breathe.

The reason why this bill is so close to my heart is that, when I worked as an agronomist, I was a project manager responsible for improving the quality of water for agriculture. I was able to see first-hand the state of our waterways and the challenges Canada faces in preserving this valuable resource.

Furthermore, the southern border of my riding of LaSalle—Émard runs along the St. Lawrence River and the Lachine Rapids, the largest rapids within an urban environment. The Parc des Rapides, which surrounds the Lachine Rapids in the LaSalle borough, is one of the six main urban parks in Montreal and is part of the greater Montreal parks network. The park, which has an area of 30 hectares, is the perfect place to view the famous Lachine Rapids and has been a refuge for migratory birds since 1937. The site has remarkable diversity and has more than 225 species of birds, including the great blue heron, which is a protected species, and 1,000 nests of three species of herons. The biodiversity does not stop there, since the park also houses 80 species of fish, including some that are at risk.

The Lachine Rapids are located in the St. Lawrence watershed. The St. Lawrence is the cradle of our history, and also a hugely diverse aquatic and shoreline environment. I believe that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound thinks that the Georgian Bay watershed in his region must also be preserved.

Bill C-383 would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit the bulk removal of water and to improve current protections.

This bill would amend the International River Improvements Act by prohibiting the issuance of licences for projects that link non-boundary waters to an international river where the purpose or effect of the project is to increase annual flow to the United States. This amendment will prohibit the issue of a licence to construct, operate or maintain a canal or pipeline channeling Canadian water into an international river.

We know that large-scale removal of water from lakes and waterways would negatively affect their ecosystems by increasing pollution concentrations. Water removal will dry up waterways, upset ecosystems and endanger plants and animals that depend on water and shorelines. This bill is a step in the right direction, a step toward preserving and protecting Canada's transboundary waters.

Still, the Canadian Water Issues Council is critical of the fact that this bill covers just 10% of Canada's fresh water while Bill C-267 went farther. This bill also fails to prohibit bulk water exports. This private member's bill proves once again that the Conservative government does not consider water to be a national priority and is not at all interested in developing a national water strategy in co-operation with its provincial counterparts.

New Democrats have been consistent in calling for a ban on bulk water export. We see a ban as an essential part of a comprehensive national water policy, something Canada lacks. Such a policy would establish clean drinking water standards and strong environmental protection for Canada's water resources, including recognition of water as common right. Passing forward-thinking legislation that recognizes a healthy and ecologically balanced planet is the most important gift we can give to future generations of Canadians.

A number of massive bulk water diversion plans, in the form of water corridors, have been proposed over the past four decades. These water corridors would have transferred massive amounts of water to the U.S. from Canada. For various reasons, none of these projects has gone forward, but the potential for such projects remains, hence the need for strong legislation to prevent them.

My message is clear. First, water, the source of life, is not like other resources. Second, we must urgently reduce our consumption of water and preserve the quality of our watersheds. Third, we must prohibit bulk water exports. This should begin with the establishment of a national water strategy with our partners to ensure that we have standards for safe, potable water, solid environmental protection measures, and conservation measures for Canada's water resources.

Bill C-383's intentions are valid and that is why I support sending this bill to protect boundary waters to committee for examination. This bill calls on the political class and thus all Canadians, reminding us of our responsibility to use water rationally and conscientiously in an overall vision, an ecosystem vision, of our watersheds. We are the guardians of water, which is a public good and a fundamental human right. We must demonstrate leadership in preserving and conserving water, the source of life.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech closely.

Once again, the government wants to create two classes of refugees. It wants to divide refugees into two groups.

The other message I got from my colleague's speech is that some countries of origin will be considered good and others will be considered bad. Here again, the government is categorizing things in a way that I find troubling and somewhat arbitrary.

What does my colleague have to say about this approach based on dividing people into two groups?

[Main Estimates 2012-13, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very familiar with the Constitution. I know that he has fought hard for environmental causes, including the Kyoto protocol.

What is his opinion about the fact that a bill to address climate change was defeated in the Senate? What does he think about that?

[Main Estimates 2012-13, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for his eloquence and knowledge and for providing some background on this.

If my calculations are correct, there are 30 years between 1982 and 2012. It has therefore been 30 years since he took part in the Meech Lake accord consultations. I would like him to elaborate on that. He was talking about Canadian public opinion polls.

How do Canadians feel about the Constitution or possibly reopening the Constitution in order to reform the Senate?

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, can the member tell me what motivated these major changes to Canada's Coast Guard? What studies were they based on? Who was consulted about this?

I would like to know what evidence and what consultations were taken into account in the decision to make these cuts to Canadian Coast Guard centres.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, if I remember correctly, our motto is “From sea to sea”. I think that what is going on now shows contempt for this beautiful motto that is so representative of Canada. It seems as though some nickel and diming is going on here. My colleague made an excellent speech, and I would like her to elaborate on the loss of expertise. I found it very interesting when she spoke about the loss of expertise when it comes to studying ice.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that my father was an Acadian from Nova Scotia and that I was lucky to visit that province quite often. It was home to my ancestors and I still have family there.

I have not yet had the opportunity to go to Newfoundland, but there is something absolutely fascinating about the Maritimes. The Nova Scotia coastline is very dangerous. My colleague who moved this motion described it very well. There are a great many small bays where all kinds of vessels can get into trouble.

I would like to ask my Liberal colleague to talk about the long-term consequences of closing these Coast Guard centres.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us more about what long-term effects she believes will result from the cuts to the Coast Guard Services.