Peter Van Loan

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our symbols, like the national anthem, belong to Canadians. They do not belong to us, as politicians. Yet the Liberals broke the rules in an effort to jam through anthem changes without any public input. However, Canadians spoke and told the Prime Minister overwhelmingly that they do not want this change.

Will the Prime Minister listen to these Canadians whom he refused to consult in the first place?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply put it in another fashion. The member started by speaking of the intention of this motion and this committee. However, one of the things that I think every one of us should do here, as policy makers, is ask, “What are the potential unintended effects?” We all know what the intention is, but what are the potential unintended effects?

One of the things I used to teach my students, when I was teaching at U of T, was that every time they make a policy decision, they need to think about the unintended effects. We all know what we want to do, but what are the things we are going to cause to happen that we do not want to do? If we tax windows, do we end up with houses with really tiny windows? That is what happened in Great Britain many years ago.

We have to think about those unintended effects.

Regardless of the good intentions that might be behind the motion, the actual effects would be to kill that industry by exposing an unacceptable level of risk to the national security of our customers. They simply will not come anymore. They will say, “If that's part of the process, thank you very much. We'll buy our armoured vehicles from France. See you later”.

We would not be any further ahead with human rights. We would not be any further ahead with engaging the countries. We would not be able to apply our own tests because we would not even be in the game and, in the process, we would have lost tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic productivity, and families across this country would be much worse off.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what I would not agree with is that the standing committee as it currently is would be the same. I think the proposed committee would be dramatically different and that is the risk with it. It would tell prospective purchasers that they would be subject to a level of public scrutiny of what they are doing, of what the technical capabilities are of their equipment, and that is going to make them vulnerable. That is a signal we do not want to send. That is a signal that would cause us to lose all those sales.

As I said, I think New Democrats genuinely want to not see a defence industry in Canada, or they might argue that we do not need to engage in exports, that exports of arms are a bad thing, and we should just serve our own market. It is a small country. When I listed those statistics, those sales of manufactured goods in World War II, when I was talking about 800,000 transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, that supported a strong defence industry. We are not going to be building that in Canada now for Canada's needs. Therefore, if we are only building for Canada's needs, we are not going to be building enough to sustain an industry. Some 60% of our stuff goes into export, so the motion, which would kill the export sector, would kill the entire industry in Canada and kill tens of thousands of jobs.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Calgary Shepard.

Every morning from coast to coast Canadians get up and go to work and more than 63,000 of those Canadians are employed in high-value jobs in the defence industry. It is an industry that has historically served a great purpose in helping keep the world safe.

In World War II, for example, Canada was known as the arsenal of democracy. Canadian defence industry production was pivotal in furthering the war effort. It also amounted to almost $10 billion in the production of necessary military arms and equipment, but the price tag is not really important. It is the role that it played. During that time the Canadian industry was able to build more than 800,000 military transport vehicles; 50,000 tanks; 400,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns; 1.7 million small arms; and much more. More importantly, those defence industries kept the world safe, safe from a tyranny of a type never before seen.

My friends in the NDP think that those engaged in the defence industry are engaged in some kind of dirty business. They actually do believe it. They talk about dirty arms traders. They do not want to see any arms trade at all. They regard it as a dirty and shameful business. I respectfully disagree.

I believe it is a noble effort, and in World War II we saw that. We saw those industries rise to meet the existential challenge that our civilization faced. Notably, there were other surprising effects. Women by the tens of thousands entered the workforce through these very defence industries. The social change that resulted despite the unfortunate nature of the impetus for it was an advancement for women and for society. The products produced by those women in the Canadian defence industries helped to keep Canada safe and helped to protect the world, helped to make the world free in a very dangerous context.

While the need for military defence was clearly greater at that time, today our defence industry continues to serve a similar and important role. It also performs an important role in both our economy and the global economy.

The continued existence of the defence industry means that we are doing our part to keep our country safe and secure and should be able to, God forbid it be needed, ramp up that production to meet any future requirements in what is an uncertain and increasingly dangerous global environment. It will ensure that Canada can rise to the occasion to do its part. Should we wipe out that industry, which I would argue is one of the logical outcomes of the motion before us today, Canada would not be able to do its part. Therefore, no, I do not believe as many in the NDP do that defence industries are a dirty business. They are doing important and in fact patriotic work.

The companies that make up the Canadian defence industrial base and the types of jobs they offer are the kinds of jobs Canada needs, the types of jobs governments should value in today's highly competitive global economy. The salaries of Canadians in this industry are 60% higher than the average Canadian industrial wage. The industry contributes $6.7 billion annually to Canada's gross domestic product. This industry serves as a vital and innovative part of Canadian manufacturing. In fact over time we know that some of the greatest innovations in technology, some of the greatest advances, have come out of military imperatives and defence development.

Out of the $10 billion in revenue the defence industry generates annually, approximately 60% of the industry's total revenue is generated through exports. The majority of the industry depends on exports. Without those exports, as I said, the industry simply would not be able to survive.

Typically, national governments are the purchasers of Canadian defence equipment and the unique conditions under which this industry operates results in a circumstance where we have to have confidential agreements with other governments. It is a government-to-government relationship in the end. Reflecting the special nature of those sales for both sides is the fact that purchases are generally made through the Canada Commercial Corporation. It is a crown corporation and this by definition shows that governments regard these purchases as important strategic and tactical decisions.

In those circumstances I pose some common-sense questions.

If a government is looking to purchase important assets for the defence of its country, how much would it want to expose that to open scrutiny its potential enemies could see? Would it want them to know and understand the technical capabilities of the equipment it was acquiring? If it were seeking the customization of equipment to meet its particular needs, would it want those details potentially exposed to its enemies? I can assure the House that in most cases customization is exactly what the customers are looking for to meet their particular national needs.

What is the common-sense answer to these questions? It is pretty clear. If we create a process, as the motion seeks to do, that risks the national security of the potential customers, they will simply go elsewhere.

The agreement for the light armoured vehicles, LAVs, from General Dynamics in London will bring $15 billion into the Canadian economy over the next 14 years and will help employ 3,000 people in London, Ontario. However, the thing to consider above all else is that if they did not buy those LAVs from us, they would simply have gone somewhere else. There were others offering to sell those LAVs. There is a lot of competition out there from suppliers who do not have a process that jeopardizes the security interests of prospective purchasers. More than 10,000 are currently employed in the sector in London, Ontario, and any measures that could drive down exports would be devastating for the local economy and for that entire industrial cluster.

The international marketplace, as I said, is a highly competitive environment for military sales. Winning contracts requires a first-rate product, and it also requires a certainty of process. This is especially so when one considers the fashion in which so many governments support foreign military sales.

If one were to then insert a parliamentary committee into that process, it would simply put an end to most exports for exactly the reasons I said. Countries would simply not be interested in subjecting themselves to the security and tactical risks involved. We know that in the case of the LAVs sale, for example, it is exactly the capabilities of those vehicles that have been raised as one of the objections. People want to know what those capabilities are. The customers naturally do not want to expose capabilities to enemies because that would make them vulnerable.

If we then put that into a public context, into a public committee where those things were aired, it would not only negatively affect the industry's ability to negotiate deals with other governments, it would in fact wipe it out. It would lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.

What New Democrats are proposing today in the motion will undoubtedly not just have a negative impact on Canada's economy and put the defence industry at risk, it would likely wipe out the bulk of that defence industry. That does not bother them because of course they know this will happen. It does not bother them at all because that has actually been the overall goal of the NDP, to shut down the defence industry.

New Democrats regard it as a shameful and a dirty business. They have talked about the arms trade sneeringly, disregarding, I think, its noble history and the noble objectives of it in the future and currently. Seeing the end of that very industry would be a satisfactory outcome to many in the NDP. That is the real purpose of this committee, shutting down that industry, which they regard as an undesirable one they do not want to see in Canada.

New Democrats know that industry relies on those confidentiality agreements. They know the necessity of tactical information being kept secure, of capabilities of equipment being kept secure, and they know that if we then exposed all those things in a parliamentary committee, it would undermine that confidentiality.

I spent some time as trade minister and had the opportunity to work in that capacity with our Canadian Commercial Corporation. I know that we have the utmost controls and protections, both at that level and of course at the export control level. Governments have that ability to determine whether a particular sale makes sense, is in Canada's interests, has regard for human rights, has regard for our national security.

All those things we can protect, but the fashion in which one seeks to protect it is important. If we do it through a process that guarantees the loss of all those sales, that puts at risk the national security of our customers, we know we will have no customers.

That means that once again, another NDP policy initiative, if it were embraced, would result in what happens with most NDP policy initiatives. First, when New Democrats see an industry that is successful, they say regulate it. This is an example. Once it is regulated to death, if it is still going, they say they have to tax it some more. If it is still going after that, once they finally tax it and regulate it enough to start getting it on its knees, then they say it is time to subsidize it. We can expect that in the future if we do this.

I say let those industries continue their good work. They do good work for Canada and for our national security. We should not cripple them and handicap them and cause the tens of thousands who work in very good jobs in the sector to lose those jobs.

[Income Tax Act, June 17th, 2016]

New York.

[Copyright Act, June 17th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-299, an act to amend the Copyright Act (term of copyright).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London for seconding the legislation.

The bill would amend the Copyright Act. It would extend the terms of copyright for authors of every original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic work from 50 to 70 years. This will be of great benefit to artists and creators of all types at a time when Canadians continue to show world leadership in the creative sectors.

The legislation would bring Canada in line with the international standard adopted by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

These changes would continue to help our creative economic sector, which is an increasingly important part of our economy, in driving further economic growth and a better quality of life in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Heritage, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, closing Canada's only museum dedicated to Confederation, cutting Confederation out as the theme of the 150th anniversary, writing the War of 1812 out of the citizenship guide, rejecting the donation of John Diefenbaker's birthplace, the Liberal government is engaged in an all-out work on Canadian history.

Now the Liberals are shutting down proposals for a commemorative medal for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

Why do the Liberals want to mark this anniversary by killing a tradition as old as our country, that of recognizing worthy citizens with a commemorative medal? Why this Liberal war on history?

[Canadian Heritage, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the 1867 Confederation Medal is described as the “first honour of the Dominion”. The criteria? It was awarded for service or merit, and open to anyone. How Canadian. The Centennial Medal was for having provided valuable service to Canada. The Canada 125 medal went to those who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, to their community, or to Canada.

What is it about the 150th anniversary of Confederation that makes it the time to stop honouring Canadians who care about their country and community? Why this Liberal war on history?

[Canadian Heritage, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition to issue commemorative medals on important anniversaries of Canada was started in 1867 when each Father of Confederation was among the many citizens receiving a medal. It happened again on the diamond anniversary. The 1967 centennial and the 125th anniversary recognized accomplished Canadians, but the Liberal government jumps at every chance to kill a proud tradition. Apparently there will not be a medal to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

Why not acknowledge worthy Canadians? Why this ongoing Liberal war on history and tradition?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 14th, 2016]

With regard to each department, agency or Crown Corporation since November 3, 2015: (a) how many requests have been made by the media to have departmental employees (excluding ministerial exempt staff) speak with or provide information to members of the media; (b) how many of these requests were declined and for what reasons; and (c) who gave the order to decline each request?