Jamie Nicholls

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we see that there have been 40 years of public and private investment in shale extraction technology. We know that the Chinese government strategy has been to acquire knowledge from energy companies. Therefore, instead of protecting Canadian innovation, once again the Conservatives have sold us out.

In The Economist we see it is clear that the strategy has been to acquire knowledge, so why do we not promote our own Canadian innovation rather than selling it out?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

I am not the only one who is concerned. Canadians are also concerned.

CNOOC is protected by Canadian investment laws. As a result, this company can increase its oil sands lease holdings.

And, it is not just a matter of oil sands. The people of Prince George—Peace River must also be concerned because we know that Nexen has shale gas lease holdings in northeastern British Columbia. So it is not just oil sands.

The Americans also have concerns about this with regard to the Gulf of Mexico. This could be complicated. The government has not been vigilant in the way it is dealing with this issue. Many things could come of this. Many bad things could come of this. Canadians are mainly concerned that their energy sovereignty and economic sovereignty will be threatened.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear which side is making the mess and the errors. It is the government side doing that. It has made errors and a mess of this deal. I outlined the fact that we did not get reciprocity. In Alberta, it could not get a guarantee from CNOOC that Nexen is going to invest in upgrading here in Canada.

Frankly, I find the Conservatives' attitude fairly defeatist. They always get up and say, “Canadians can't do it. We have to bring foreigners in to do it because Canadians aren't capable. We don't have enough money. We're not good enough or smart enough. Gee, gosh, shucks, we need that money to help us out”.

I do not believe it. I think that is defeatist and we can do better.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I would also like to congratulate the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for moving this motion in the House.

Today we are talking about the importance of defining the concept of “net benefit”. Why is this notion of net benefit so important? Why should we bring up the issue? When Canadians are asked their opinion, most of them believe that the government must exercise our independence, our economic sovereignty and our energy sovereignty. This is what my constituents often tell me. They ask me what I am going to do to protect them from the foreign forces that may harm our industries from the point of view of their economic and energy security.

When Canadians see the sale of a significant proportion of their energy industry, they wonder how this can be to their net benefit. Last Friday, the prime minister clearly mentioned that there was no net benefit for Canadians in the sale of Nexen and Petronas to state-owned companies—in the case of Nexen, to a state-owned company controlled by the communist and totalitarian Chinese government.

The problem is not the fact that the company is Chinese—people of Chinese origin have contributed significantly to building our nation, and their contribution, especially in terms of the railway, was central to the birth of modern-day Canada. The problem is not the fact that the company is Chinese, but rather that CNOOC, a state-owned corporation, is a branch of the communist government in China. Canadians are extremely concerned, because they fear such a corporation controlling a proportion of our natural resources.

However, New Democrats are not the only ones who are concerned about these actions. Earlier this year, Peter Lougheed, the former premier of Alberta, passed away. This is what he said about this issue:

I know people will fall from their chairs to hear me say this, but maybe right now we need to return to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We need to be more interventionist. The passive approach isn't working. If the (present trend) continues, we are going to look at our country in about three years and say: What have we got left?

Those are not the words of a New Democrat or a Liberal; they are the words of a Conservative who served the province of Alberta for many years. He was a well respected man. When a person like Peter Lougheed is worried and suggests that we return to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, there is cause for concern. That is why Canadians are expressing their misgivings about this so forcefully.

Statistics show that there has been tremendous growth in foreign takeovers. This year, foreign acquisitions were worth $9.5 billion in the first quarter, $12.4 billion in the second quarter, $5.9 billion in the third quarter, and now in the fourth quarter, the Nexen deal is worth $15.1 billion and the Petronas deal $5.3 billion. The grand total is $48.8 billion, with no real oversight on these investments.

That is the problem: there is no clear oversight and there are no guarantees. When CNOOC came in to buy Nexen, we got no long-term guarantee that there would be jobs in the Calgary office or any enhanced innovation in Canada.

Perhaps they will take Nexen's technology and use it around the world. Canada will not benefit from that. Here is what Jack Layton said about this: Canadians have the right to know whether or not an investment is in the country's best interest. We must have the power to retaliate when a company's actions threaten the country's interests, even if the company is foreign-controlled.

We have been talking about net benefit today. Let us talk about what would have been of net benefit to Canada had this deal been negotiated properly. Let us talk about reciprocity. A crucial piece of this deal could have been using it as leverage for reciprocity. The Chinese state-owned enterprise was allowed to buy a part of our strategic assets in energy, Canadians ask if we can we buy strategic assets in China. The answer from the government benches would be no. Could we have tried to leverage this deal to get reciprocity? The answer would be yes. Did the government do so? The answer would be no.

The government and, in particular, the Minister of Industry cowed on this deal. He contented himself with CNOOC's answer, which was that to get increased reciprocity in China, the Canadian government would have to have separate negotiations with the Chinese government. Never mind that CNOOC is an arm of the Chinese government. I can see clearly now the face of the industry minister turning red and him cowing to representatives of CNOOC when they told him he would have to negotiate with the Chinese government. It goes to show that when it comes to negotiating our shared future, the Conservatives get a failing grade.

That makes me wonder why the government has ministers at all when it is clear that the PMO calls the shots and drafts their talking points for them. We will note that it was the Prime Minister who made the announcement on Friday, not the industry minister. As far as I could see from that press conference, the industry minister was not present at all. The micromanager in chief, the Prime Minister, has had to step in once again to do damage control for a minister who did not do his job properly.

Time after time the minister stood in this place and told Canadians that with the approval of these sales, the reformulation of the rules around the Investment Canada Act and the new guidelines would be clear. He said that the government would put forward a new era with clear guidelines about foreign investment in Canada. All we can see today, Monday, a few days later, is people scratching their heads. This is not a clear way forward. It is basically improvisation. The Conservatives are making it up as they go along. After months of the micromanager in chief asking his charge if he has completed his assignment, the red-faced minister kept saying no. Finally the Prime Minister had to step in and say enough is enough, let us get on with this and swallow the bitter pill.

That is not the way to manage an economy. It is not a responsible way for a government to proceed. Frankly, I have to say the government has made a real mess of this deal. It really was not careful in negotiating it. What does exceptional circumstances mean? No one knows. I could ask every member what it means and they would probably all give me a different answer, but I am going to hazard a guess.

Exceptional circumstances means that the Prime Minister engages with a foreign power as damage control for a previously failed foreign policy with that country. It means that, being strong-armed, the Prime Minister is put into a corner when that foreign power wants part of our resources, and the industry minister is incapable of developing the spin because Canadians do not support the sale in large numbers. Exceptional circumstances, indeed; every Canadian knows that is what happened.

I really hope that the government goes back to the drafting table. If it truly wants to start a new era of investment review, it should do so on the foundation of reports, expert advice and Canadians' input.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, compatibility with federal and provincial economic policies is one of the criteria to approve a foreign investment.

Does my colleague see any evidence that the government consulted with the provinces before authorizing the sale?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government heralded this new era of investment review on Friday. The member for Don Valley West gave us an overview of the FIRA regime back in the 1970s.

With each change to the investment review, such as what happened in 1973 and 1985, they were set on foundations. For instance, the FIRA was set on the Gordon commission, the Watkins report, the Wahn report and the Gray Report, which finally formed the FIRA. A similar process happened in 1985.

Exactly what studies, what reports and what foundations are there for the Prime Minister's Friday improvisations? Where is the backing for those changes in the new era of investment review for Canada?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is the net benefit to Canadians.

In addressing this issue, we ask what the Canadian economy needs and we see weaknesses when it comes to innovation in certain economic sectors.

Therefore, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary can answer the following question.

After 40 years of investment in innovation in horizontal drilling technology, what protections do we have that CNOOC or Nexen will not export this technology and basically take that 40 years of investment away and use it at their own leisure around the world?

[National Defence, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 fiasco may finally be coming to an end. The program that started with poor decisions, made behind closed doors, with phony numbers, is dying, through leaks and cabinet ministers settling scores.

The New Democrats first brought up questions about the F-35. More than two and a half years ago, the member for St. John's East asked the Minister of National Defence about the replacement of the CF-18. The minister had settled on the F-35, only to reverse himself minutes later, saying that there would be an open competition. This was the start of a never-ending series of debacles.

I would also like to thank those who had the courage to blow the whistle on the Conservatives' many slip-ups on this file, including the former assistant deputy minister for materiel, Alan Williams, who was determined to inform Canadians about what was going on. He showed that a dedicated public servant can have a tremendous impact by speaking out against Conservative mismanagement.

Let us hope that we have finally closed the book on the F-35 fiasco.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the government of Paul Martin, yet everyone in the New Democratic Party, and perhaps the Conservative benches as well, can say that the military was not a priority of the Liberal government either under Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin. That has been a weakness of that party and it shows. It sat on the report for two years and the member does not deny that. He said the government had other priorities.

The men and women serving in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Cyprus were not a priority for the Liberal Party and I find that tragic. As I said, these people literally give their lives to Canada. When they die, they have given their lives to their country. The member says that it was not a priority of his government, and I find that shameful. I am really disturbed by that.

The Liberal government spent two years sitting on that report and waffled back and forth for the next nine years. I am glad that the Liberals have finally come around to seeing things the way the NDP does and believing that amendments should be made. New Democrats do not think this bill goes far enough. We think the government should go back to the drafting table and redraft this legislation to respond to the Lamer report in a way we can be proud of.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as policy-makers, there are two paths we can take. We can take a very strong approach, look at the report and implement everything in the report, or we can take an incremental approach and implement a few things now, some things later and other things years down the road. When drafting legislation, we have to judge which road we are going to take. That is evidence of a responsible government.

The government in this case has chosen to take the incremental route. New Democrats are delivering a message and saying no, the government has taken incremental measures in the past but has to go further with this legislation. It must take a more proactive route; it cannot just dribble some reforms now, some later and others down the road. It really has to take a strong stance now, but it has not done so. That is why we are opposing the bill at second reading.

We are asking the government to go back to the drawing table and redraft the legislation, and then New Democrats will pass it if it goes far enough.