Today, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau announced additions to our critic line-up:

David McGuinty – Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

This is in addition to Mr. McGuinty’s duties as Liberal Critic for Science and Technology, Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario.

A delegation of Canadian public- and private-sector leaders in the fields of business, education, innovation, social justice and development will share their experiences and knowledge with their counterparts and play an active role in highlighting Canada’s involvement in the three host countries. These exchanges will further develop the wide-ranging and multi-faceted relationships with Ghana, Botswana and South Africa, and will provide greater visibility for our bilateral co-operation initiatives.

OFFICIAL DELEGATION

Deepak Obhrai (South Africa)
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Member of Parliament

David McGuinty
Member of Parliament

Peter Braid
Member of Parliament

John Rafferty
Member of Parliament

ACCOMPANYING DELEGATION

The Honourable Perrin Beatty (Ghana, Botswana)President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Dr. Amit Chakma
President and Vice-Chancellor, Western University and
Chair, World University Service of Canada (WUSC)

Paul Davidson
President, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)

Derek Evans
Executive Director, Cuso International

Craig Kielburger (Botswana, South Africa)
Co-Founder, Free the Children

Jean Lebel
Acting President, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

Rodney N. Thomas
First Vice President, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada

The biographies of the accompanying delegation are available online at www.gg.ca.

Members of the public can follow the Governor General’s State visits to the Republic of Ghana, the Republic of Botswana and the Republic of South Africa online at www.gg.ca, where speeches and photos will be posted.

-30-

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=15101&lan=eng

The order puts a stop to efforts by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which is shutting down as its government funding ends, to transfer its website to a think-tank based at the University of Ottawa. The think-tank, Sustainable Prosperity, had offered to keep the government-funded research accessible to the public.

Kent’s spokesman Rob Taylor said the government still planned to continue giving Canadians access to the panel’s “full body of work.” He said Environment Canada would assume ownership of the website and redirect users to the web page of Library and Archives Canada, which would store the public records.

But the order also prevents the panel from posting a farewell message that includes praise from its former leaders, including Gov. Gen. David Johnston, who was its founding chairman.

The panel, created by former prime minister Brian Mulroney’s government in 1988, is shutting down in a few days in response to a 2012 federal budget decision to end its annual $5 million in funding.

“The rights to the domain name nrtee-trnee.ca will not be assigned or otherwise transferred to any outside entity, but will be transferred to Her Majesty the Queen, in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of the Environment,” wrote Kent in the letter, dated March 22, to the panel’s vice-chairman, Robert Slater.

“Further the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) will upload no further content to its external website, as of the date on which this direction is signed.”

Kent’s letter also said the Harper government would continue to make the panel’s research available through existing federal policies on access to publications.

The panel was previously an arm’s-length organization, independent of the government, but changes adopted in budget implementation legislation last July gave Kent powers to control its public messages.

Kent suggested last year that the round table was no longer necessary since governments and industry could rely on research from the Internet and other sources.

Several statements prepared by former leaders from the round table suggested the contrary.

In his own personal message, Johnston wrote that the panel’s greatest achievement was developing a clear and comprehensive definition of sustainable development with supporting legislation adopted in Parliament.

“The Round Table’s mission was rooted in a clear-eyed understanding that our desire for a modern economy and our duty to a sustainable environment are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually reinforcing,” Johnston wrote for the document that is now not going to be posted. “Another of the real achievements of the Round Table was to establish a broad network of interested parties from senior levels of government, the environmental sector, the business community, and academia. It was unique to have Cabinet Ministers in the same room as people from other sectors on a regular basis.”

Slater, who is also a professor of environmental policy at Carleton University, says the government was aware of its efforts to transfer its website to Sustainable Prosperity, but only informed him of its objection in Kent’s letter last week.

The round table’s former chair, Bob Page, said he spent the past few months writing an essay about the organization’s record and achievements, and was upset to hear the government was preventing its publication.

“When I see the desire to try and get rid of documents which (analyze and debate evidence for policies) then I see that as a comment on democracy,” said Page, who directs a sustainability centre at the University of Calgary’s business school. “I see it as a comment on the ability of Canada as a democracy to have a vigorous public policy discussion.”

Meantime, the round table also sent copies of its research reports and files to more than three dozen recipients across the country, including libraries, government agencies or representatives, non-government organizations and other think-tanks.

He said the files include 120 formal reports and hundreds of research papers from its 25-year history.

Liberal MP David McGuinty, a president of the panel from 1996 to 2004, said that the minister’s actions suggest the government wants to censor access to information that shows its environmental and economic policies are on the wrong track.

“Minister Kent’s involvement at this level of detail is automatically a signal for me that they are trying to control information,” said McGuinty. “They really want to extinguish even the name of the organization. It’s Orwellian … It’s like burning books, burning the names, (or pretending) it never happened. And that’s just ridiculous.”

See the original article by Mike De Souza here

David McGuinty, MP for Ottawa South was recently named critic for the Liberal corner’s science and technology, federal economic development agency for southern Ontario and federal economic development agency for northern Ontario.

He received the new postings a few weeks after he resigned as the natural resources critic because of comments he made to Conservative MPs from Alberta.

McGuinty offered his resignation in November and apologized for the comments he made saying that his words in no way reflected the views of his party or leader.

“I had a conversation with a journalist. It was a very long discussion and excerpts of the conversation were cut. The comments were made public and it caused a commotion and I decided the best thing was to apologize for any offence it might have caused and step aside from my critic role,” said McGuinty.

However, he disagreed his comments hurt his party’s chances in the Calgary Centre by-election that Conservatives won.

“If you look at the results of the Calgary Centre by-election, the reason we lost is because three opposition parties divided the votes and allowed the Conservative candidate to come up the middle,” said McGuinty. “This is a challenge for the 60 per cent of Canadian voters who are progressive in nature.”

EXCITED ABOUT NEW ROLE

McGuinty said he would support any moves to bring back the Ottawa-Gatineau region to where it was in early 2000s when the region was receiving 60 to 70 per cent of all venture capital invested in Canada.

“We are now down well below 25 per cent and that is unfortunate,” said McGuinty.

He said he was pleased to be able to take on this task, that he finds critical and integral to Canada’s success in the future.

“Canada in my view is not doing very well on the science and technology front,” he said.

“I have a lot of constituents in Ottawa South who work at the National Research Council and at many of the granting agencies and many of them are telling me that funding for core science is being slashed.”

He added that many scientists were being let go but more troubling is the fact that many in government in particular were being censored and silenced.

“Science and technology for me as a portfolio is an incredible new challenge,” said McGuinty.

Currently, there are still more than 2,000 IT firms in the greater Ottawa-Gatineau area, according to McGuinty.

“Science and technology is where the race is. It applies to energy, transport, and infrastructure and we have to ensure we have the smartest most innovative population on the face of the planet.

“For me it is integral and foundational to Canada’s existing and future success.”

McGuinty suggested that the current government’s approach to science and technology was very much one from the 1950s.

“Dig up the oil…to a certain extent, transform it, but sell as much as we can,” he said.

“If we want to be better in science and technology, we need a real tangible innovation strategy for the country.”

He said he was proud of his brother Dalton, former Ontario premier for being the first sub-national government in all of North America to create a ministry for research and innovation.

“The point is in Canada we are not talking about an innovation strategy or an industrial policy. We are not even looking at the tax system as aggressively as we should be, certainly, as it applies in my view to very important environmental issues like climate change.”

Read the full article by Eddie Rwema here at Ottawa South EMC

Mr. Page has said previously that he would not seek another term as budget officer, but also said last week that if the government asked him to stay on for “few more months to facilitate the transition on the appointment of the next PBO [he] would accept.”

Mr. Page said, however, that it’s unlikely that would happen, which is why the government should use its governor-in-council appointment power to fill the position temporarily while the Library of Parliament conducts a search for the new person.

“I think the government’s position was made clear with the vote on the motion advanced by the official opposition [last] week that there is no interest in an extension,” Mr. Page said.

“It is important that the position of Parliamentary budget officer be occupied at the end of March, either through a timely appointment of a new budget officer or an interim governor-in-council appointment from someone currently in the office,” Mr. Page told The Hill Times last week, amid concerns that the office will be vacant when the 2013 budget is tabled at the end of March and MPs are unable to receive an analysis of it from the office.

“Budgets are key economic and fiscal policy statements for the government. The position of the Parliamentary budget officer was created through the Accountability Act to help Parliamentarians with additional economic and fiscal analysis so they are better placed to hold the government to account. Budget 2013 will mark the starting point for the next budget officer. There should be a seamless transition—anything less is a management failure,” Mr. Page said.

MPs voted last Tuesday on an NDP opposition day motion to extend Mr. Page’s term until his successor is found. The motion was defeated by a vote of 157 to 131. The motion, which is not binding, also called on the House of Commons to “reaffirm the essential role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in providing independent analysis to Parliamentarians on the state of the nation’s finances, trends in the Canadian economy and the estimates process” and called on the government to make the office an independent officer of Parliament similar to the auditor general or Ethics Commissioner.

The majority-governing Conservatives, whose government created the position under its Federal Accountability Act in 2006 and appointed Mr. Page to the position in March 2008, voted against the motion.

Under the Federal Accountability Act which created the Parliamentary Budget Office, and which amends the Parliament of Canada Act, the government can renew the PBO’s term for up to five years.

In this case, since the government is clear it does not want Mr. Page in the position, it could renew his term for a shorter period, perhaps one year, until his successor is found.

The government, however, is choosing to leave the position vacant and allowing the Library of Parliament to go ahead with its search through headhunting firm Renaud Foster.

When asked why, PMO press secretary Julie Vaux said in an email: “We want to see a Parliamentary budget officer that is a non-partisan, credible source of opinion on fiscal matters. The Parliamentary librarian has retained a search firm. We have no intention to move the Parliamentary budget officer outside of the Library of Parliament.”

NDP MP Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park, Ont.), her party’s finance critic, told The Hill Times last week that it will be a disservice to Canadians if a Parliamentary budget officer is not in place when the government introduces its next budget.

“We have to have public accountability. One of the most crucial things for MPs do, on behalf of our constituents, is provide that oversight for the tax dollars that come in and the moneys that get spent. Especially with this government and the hundreds and hundreds of pages of massive omnibus budget bills, without adequate study, without adequate examination and debate, it’s been almost impossible to do a thorough analysis, and the PBO’s role is essential in terms of being able to give us an honest appraisal when he can get the data,” Ms. Nash said.

“They could’ve easily decided to do that [extend Mr. Page’s term or appoint someone temporarily] and I think it’s sad that a party that rode into Ottawa on the issue of public accountability and good public administration is now going to leave this critical position vacant throughout the whole budget process period in Canada. That’s not accountability for Canadians,” Ms. Nash said.

Read the full article by Bea Vongdouangchanh at the Hill Times

Liberal MP Frank Valeriote, for instance, asked a detailed question about the government’s vehicle procurement that, the government says in a lengthy response document, took $150,000 worth of work to answer.

The $1.2 million figure came in response to a written question from Tory backbencher Brian Jean, who feels the opposition should be limited in the number of written questions it puts to the government.

MPs from across the aisle say limiting these queries would undermine the role of Parliament.

“I won’t be shamed into not asking questions just because the Conservatives have a problem being transparent,” said Valeriote. “It’s our duty to make sure the government is properly managing billions and billions in public funds. If they think it’s too expensive to answer questions maybe they should try being more forthcoming. But they want to obscure this issue by putting a price tag next to democracy. I mean, they might as well just cut all of the funding to the opposition. That would save a lot of money right?”

The written questions were wide-ranging. For instance, a written question from NDP MP Peter Stoffer about IT spending at the Department of Defence, Public Security and other federal agencies cost $15,733 to answer. It cost $15,358 to study the kinds of backdrops the government used when making announcements between February 2011 and June 2012 – a question asked by Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux, of Winnipeg North. Lamoureux tabled four questions on June 19, for a total cost of $46,228.

NDP MP Alexandrine Latendresse’s question about expenses related to engraved letterheads used by the Conservatives was answered after $21,600 of research. The Quebec-City area MP submitted three questions on May 2, racking up a $39,000 bill.

Members of Parliament are allowed to submit written questions to the government, and often do so in order to receive more detailed information from federal departments than they might obtain during the daily oral Question Period. The government is required to respond to written queries within 45 days.

The information is gathered by federal staffers at a rate of about $60 per hour, per employee.

But Liberal MP David McGuinty says the figures recently released on the cost of questions is just a diversionary tactic to intimidate parliamentarians.

“This is classic Conservative politicking,” McGuinty said. “They’re attacking people who dare ask them to do their job just like they attacked the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he asked them for figures on the F-35 (procurement) program. ”

Most recently, a report by the KPMG accounting firm found that the Conservatives undersold the 20-year cost of procuring F-35 fighter jets by about $9 billion.

“Let me get this straight, the Conservatives can put a price on the order (paper) questions but can’t seem to cost the F-35,” McGuinty said. “But they’ve spent hours and hours figuring out how much these questions cost.”

The government spent more than $6,000 researching McGuinty’s query about funding cuts to Canadian libraries. Jean was not available to comment on why he asked a written question about the cost of written questions. But he told Postmedia News in March: “I don’t think taxpayers should pay for it. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Read the full story here Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA – First Dalton, now David McGuinty is taking a pass on running for the federal Liberal leadership.

Like his brother, retiring Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, the Ottawa MP said Monday he’s decided he won’t take the plunge.

David McGuinty told The Canadian Press he’s concluded he can best serve the party in other ways.

“I’ve reflected long and hard on what is the best way for me to help rebuild the party, what is the best way for me to help hold down the fort, do what I call a lot of the ground work, a lot of the nuts and bolts work,” he said in an interview.

“And I think I am best placed at this time to do what I’m doing, which is to really build the party from the ground up, riding by riding, issue by issue, in the committees, on the floor of the House of Commons.

“I just think there’s so much heavy lifting to be done that, from my perspective, this is for me the best way to serve.”

McGuinty said his decision has nothing to do with the widespread perception that Montreal MP Justin Trudeau, eldest son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, has already locked up the contest, which only officially began last week and culminates April 14.

“I don’t place a lot of stock in prohibitive favourites,” he said, pointing out that brother Dalton vaulted from fourth place to win the Ontario Liberal leadership in 1996.

The premier announced last month that he will retire as soon as a successor is chosen in January. Under pressure from a well-organized draft campaign, he briefly toyed with the notion of running for the federal leadership but eventually ruled that out.

David McGuinty said his brother’s brief flirtation with the federal leadership had no bearing on his own decision.

“Could be worse. There’s ten of us,” he quipped, referring to his many siblings.

“I think Dalton owed it to a lot of folks to consider this and I’m glad he did…. Whatever he had decided to do or decides to do in future, I’ll be there for him and I know he feels the same way about me.”

In addition to the McGuinty brothers, a number of other prospective heavyweight contenders have chosen to sit out the contest, including Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, former deputy prime minister John Manley, New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc and Halifax MP Geoff Regan.

The most serious challenger to Trudeau so far is Martha Hall Findlay, the former MP who ran last in the 2006 leadership contest. She took the plunge last week.

A clutch of long shots have also declared their intention to challenge Trudeau, including lawyer and policy consultant Deborah Coyne, mother of Trudeau’s half sister, Vancouver prosecutor Alex Burton, Ottawa lawyer David Bertschi, retired Canadian Forces Lt.-Col. Karen McCrimmon and David Merner, former president of the party’s British Columbia wing.

Vancouver MP Joyce Murray is expected to join the race early next week. Montreal MP Marc Garneau, Canada’s first astronaut, is also expected to eventually take the plunge, as is Toronto lawyer George Takach.

So far Trudeau is the only candidate who has officially registered with the party, which includes paying the first $25,000 instalment of a $75,000 entry fee.

Read the full story here

In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the Canada-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce in London, and said a phrase that he and his government would repeat several times in the years to come.

“Canada intends to be not just an energy superpower, but also a clean energy superpower, because the reality of climate change is upon us,” he said.

That was four years ago. In 2010, industry insiders told Embassy they felt the term “clean energy superpower” was an empty buzzword. Now, industry critics, opposition members, former officials, and academics all say the Harper government seems to have stopped using the term regularly in national media circles.

In fact, the last reference anyone could recall was in March. Instead, they say there is a new emphasis on branding Canada as an “energy superpower”minus the clean part. Mr. Harper also referred to Canada on Nov. 7 as a “natural resources powerhouse.”

Analysts are offering different explanations for what appears to be a shift in rhetoric. While critics suggest the Conservatives don’t have the policies to back up the word “clean,” others say the party is making progress, but that politicization of the term could be the reason.

The disappearing act

After Mr. Harper used the term in 2008, he told an Alberta audience in October 2009 that “the only way we are going to stay competitive in the global energy market of the future, is if we are also a clean energy superpower.”

A December 2011 government press release announcing the government’s investment in a project to help with biodiesel production stated that Canada had “strengthened its position as a clean energy superpower” with the initiative.

Then in March, Environment Minister Peter Kent spoke to the Ontario Energy Association in Toronto. He talked about how it was almost impossible to consider one without the other.

“Given the commitment Canada has made to address climate change…to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…to take its place as a clean energy superpower…that convergence will continue,” he said.

But some say they aren’t hearing the phrase used as often anymore. Michael Cleland, former president of the Canadian Gas Association and former assistant deputy minister of energy at Natural Resources Canada, said that while “clean” could have been seen as a politically necessary term, the shift could be due to a broader focus on natural resources.

This presumably includes the notion of “clean,” but the government seems to have downplayed that, said Mr. Cleland, who is currently the Nexen Executive in Residence for the Canada West Foundation.

It could be that the word “clean” doesn’t work well as a sound byte when the term is changed to include “natural resources,” he said.

“I would just surmise that when you’re talking about natural resources generally, the extra adjective doesn’t seem to fit, and in any event, the focus on clean frankly has, it’s dropped back a bit from what I can see,” Mr. Cleland said.

He said he doesn’t think people would understand what someone meant by “clean natural resources.”

Warren Mabee, an assistant professor with the geography department and the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University, said he has noticed people using the term a little less and perhaps a little more pointedly.

“There’s definitely more and more rhetoric about us being a superpower, not so much a clean energy superpower,” Mr. Mabee said.

There is more emphasis on Canada having the ability to supply more of the world’s energy, he noted.

In a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, Foreign Minister John Baird said in August that when he meets his counterparts around the world, he “consistently” builds up Canada’s reputation as a “resource superpower.”

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver commented on a Senate committee report in a statement in July and cited “Canada’s emerging role as a global energy superpower.”

Mr. Mabee said he thinks the lack of emphasis on the phrase “clean energy superpower” is due to a politicization of the term in the past few years.

The term clean energy has been “owned by the left” in the United States, and this has probably played a role in dictating how Ottawa uses it.

“Green energy” and “clean energy” are becoming synonymous with things like Ontario’s Green Energy Act, which is tied to the Liberal Party, Mr. Mabee argued.

“It may be partly that the word clean has become associated with the Liberal brand and they just don’t want to be using something that’s associated with the Liberal brand.”

But Mr. Mabee added that just because the federal government might not be using the term as often, it doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in “clean” technologies or resource development.

“I think they are interested,” he said.

He cited the government’s move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.

In September the government announced its final regulations for such plants. This would mean that a plant would not be permitted to give off more than 420 tonnes of greenhouse gases per gigawatt hour of electricity that it generated.

And the government does talk about clean energy in other contexts. Canada and its southern neighbour launched the Canada-US Clean Energy Dialogue in February 2009 “to enhance joint collaboration on the development of clean energy science and technologies to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change.”

David B. Layzell, executive director of the University of Calgary’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, said it seems the environment went from being a high priority five years ago to more focus being on the economy and jobs.

“Public support for initiatives around the environment have decreased pretty dramatically,” he said, arguing this is likely a reason the term “clean energy superpower” isn’t being used as much.

Debate over a tough sell’

Pembina Institute executive director Ed Whittingham said it started off years ago with the term “energy superpower,” but that the prime minister would follow up by saying Canada also needed to be a clean energy superpower.

“Well he has certainly backed away from that,” Mr. Whittingham said. “I think it was a tough sell from the start, because that’s certainly not how the world sees us.”

It is hard to go abroad now and talk about Canada being a clean energy superpower, because people see through it quickly, Mr. Whittingham said.

Opposition members of Parliament agreed.

“What we’ve seen is a concept which I don’t think was ever properly defined, and certainly has not been backfilled with the kinds of concrete actions you would expect so that you could reasonably defend your proposition to the world that Canada is a clean energy superpower,” Liberal MP and natural resources critic David McGuinty said.

Travis Davies, spokesperson for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said they share the view of Canadians that the world needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and that they are working hard to do their part.

NDP energy and natural resources critic Peter Julian said the government used the term out of convenience.

“When Mr. Harper was trying to gain power, he was much more sensitive to the need to develop clean energy here in Canadahe was responding to what is a very clear interest in the public for Canada to be a green energy developer.”

Meanwhile Sandra Schwartz, vice president of policy advocacy with the Canadian Electricity Association, said that just because the terminology has potentially shifted, she doesn’t think the government’s focus has changed from what it was four years ago.

“I think the focus has remained that Canada has an abundance of natural resources and those resources can be developed in an environmentally responsible way.”

Mike Deising, press secretary for Alberta’s energy minister, wrote in an email that while he couldn’t comment on the federal government’s use of the term, they appreciate the federal government’s efforts to talk about Canada’s energy sector on a global level.

“The Alberta government continues to use every opportunity to position itself as global energy player that is committed to responsible development,” Mr. Deising wrote.

The federal government did not respond to request for comment before press time.

Is Canada even an energy superpower’?

Meanwhile there is also an ongoing debate about even using the term “superpower” in connection to Canada’s natural resources.

Mr. Cleland said he always thought the term was an “overreach,” but that it does seem to have caught on among Canadians.

Russ Kuykendall is a former research fellow with Cardus and a former director of policy to a past natural resources minister. He said it is to Canada’s advantage to be known as a clean energy superpower.

“I think it’s important that Canada leverage its energy natural resources and do so for the benefit of Canadians, the benefit of investorsand for the benefit of the public treasury.”

Meanwhile, Wenran Jiang, associate political science professor at the University of Alberta, said some academics are uneasy with labeling Canada an “energy superpower,” because the word “superpower” has negative connotations to it, such as being associated to the Cold War era.

“When you define Canada as a superpower in relation to energyyou have to use energy as some sort of economic, political tool to force people to assert influence.”

This is something Canada cannot achieve, he said.

Mr. Jiang, however, welcomed Mr. Harper depiction of Canada during a speech at the World Economic Forum on Nov. 7.

“Canada, on the one hand, is a natural-resources powerhouse,” Mr. Harper said.

“I think that’s more of a better way of describing CanadaI think that is quite accurate and quite acceptable,” Mr. Jiang said.

He said only time would tell whether the government was rephrasing how it wanted to characterize Canada and its natural resources and whether other ministers started picking up on the term.

To read the complete story, click here

Read the full story by Mike De Souza here

Enbridge’s Line 9 reversal could see Alberta crude reach eastern Canadian refineries next year, and while critics of federal energy policy are pleased at the prospect of job creation in the East, they expect regional divisions over energy projects to persist without a national energy strategy.

The National Energy Board approved Enbridge’s proposal to reverse the flow of part of its Line 9 pipeline from Sarnia, Ont., to refineries outside of Hamilton in July, and the company plans to apply to reverse the remainder of the line to Montreal before the end of the year. The first leg of the project, Line 9A, is expected to be in service next year.

Line 9 Trailbreaker’s regulatory progress has been welcome news to Enbridge and the federal government, as the company’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta’s oil sands to port facilities in Kitimat, B.C., has been bogged down by public opposition within British Columbia.

Last week, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver (Eglinton-Lawrence, Ont.) told CBC Radio that the federal government hopes to see all pipeline projects approved.

“These projects are not mutually exclusive. We want to seem them all go ahead, if they pass, from a regulatory point of view,” Mr. Oliver told CBC’s The House. “[P]rovided they’re safe for Canadians and safe for the environment, we see the need for a lot of infrastructure because there are a lot of resources that we have to transport to tidewater, so that we can export them to the markets where they want it.”

Meanwhile, the NDP has welcomed the prospect of a West to East pipeline flow, provided that the project is based on strong environmental standards and public consultation.

“We’ve lost tens of thousands of value-added jobs in the refining sector over the last few years,” NDP energy critic Peter Julian (BurnabyNew Westminster, B.C.) told The Hill Times last week. “There are a number of refineries in Eastern Canada that are either closed or threatened with closure. Having that supply in Eastern Canada makes good economic sense.”

In July, B.C. Premier Christy Clark withdrew her support for Northern Gateway over environmental concerns. Ms. Clark trails B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix by more than 20 percentage points in public opinion polls and faces an election in May, 2013. Mr. Dix is likely to succeed her and has stated that Northern Gateway will not go ahead under an NDP government. An August poll by Abacus Data showed that 56 per cent of British Columbians opposed the Northern Gateway project.

Premier Clark’s about-face on the project has led to a rift between her province and Alberta. Ms. Clark was the only first minister to decline signing on to Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s proposed national energy strategy at last July’s Council of the Federation meeting in Halifax.

Liberal natural resources critic David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Ont.) said that regional divisions will continue to emerge with each new mega project without a national energy strategy in place.

“I don’t care if it’s Keystone, Northern Gateway, Nexen, or a West-East pipeline. These are flashpoints that will continue to arise, issue by issue. Because we don’t have a serious roadmap and strategy on Canada’s energy future, we’re going to continue to flip flop around like fish on a dock,” said Mr. McGuinty. “This is not going to stop. We’re going to jump from ice flow to ice flow because the Harper government doesn’t want to have an adult conversation about choices.”

The remainder of the Line 9 reversal still faces public opposition. Quebec-based environmental group Equiterre fired off a missive on Oct. 4 calling on communities and the Quebec government to oppose the reversal of Line 9B from Hamilton to Montreal.

Environmental groups have also raised doubts over whether or not the oil carried by Line 9 will actually be refined in Canada.

Environmental Defence recently released documents obtained through freedom of information legislation in the U.S. showing that Canadian Consul General Pat Binns met Maine Governor Paul LePage and members of the American Pipeline Institute and Portland Pipeline Corporation on Oct. 17, 2011 to discuss refining Alberta oil sands crude in Maine refineries.

Joseph Arvai, applied decision research chair at the University of Calgary’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, said that regional divisions over Canada’s energy future would continue to emerge without a national energy strategy.

“There’s not a lot of clarity around what the goals and objectives are around the decisions that we need to make,” Prof. Arvai observed. “It’s easy to say that we want to utilize our resources while at the same time protecting the environment so that we can provide better economic security and better quality of life. None of those things are really operationalized to actually help decision makers.”

Mr. Oliver has stated that resource development could generate $500-billion in investment over the next decade, contributing to the revenue base for social programs, health, and education, but Prof. Arvai said that it’s impossible to make sound policy decisions unless the goals and objectives of the development are clear.

“Until you can really get a lot of clarity around those almost micro-level questions, it’s very difficult to actually evaluate the pros and cons of any alternatives,” he said, pointing out the sudden pivot towards a West to East pipeline as evidence of unsound decision-making.

“Everyone’s writing now about how Northern Gateway is dead and we’re going to move oil, gas, and heavy oil east. This is a very radical shift in the decision making landscape,” Prof. Arvai observed. “All of the sudden Asia’s off the table and we’re talking about moving it east to some other market.”

Prof. Arvai said that there was a need for governments, industry, and the public to engage on the issue within a clear framework for decision making.

“These conversations are definitely happening, but what’s missing in the conversation is any kind of useful structure for making a decision,” he said. “This isn’t just an indictment of governmentyou look at Pembina, Suzuki, CanadaWest groups that have weighed in on the energy strategy. They generate a lot of really great conversation, and some really fantastic wish lists, but no real mechanism for ploughing through the tough decisions. Until we have that, we’re screwed.”

cplecash@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

Read the original story at The Hill Times

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):

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

[Translation]

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.

Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): 

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are calling for more transparency in this matter. We also know that the act definitely does not exclude public consultations.

Can the hon. member tell us why it would not be more relevant and politically appealing to hold such public consultations?

Mr. David McGuinty: 

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.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of excellent points but I want to elaborate on one in particular. What is in it for Canadian business if we pursue and go forward with this deal?

The member mentioned how there would be potential possibilities for the banking sector with respect to increased trade with China. However, Jeffrey Simpson raised the concern of reciprocity. He said that to really judge this deal we should look at it in reverse. If this were a Canadian company trying to embark on a deal like this within China would this deal actually go ahead? I think there is one answer to that, which is that it would never happen.

Does my colleague agree that there needs to be some kind of benefit for Canadian business? What sectors of Canadian business would benefit from increased trade with China?

Mr. David McGuinty: 

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.

Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa South for his excellent speech. I must say that it raised a lot of questions.

My question for the member has to do with the Investment Canada Act. It has been around since 1985. We are familiar with it and no major changes have been made to it.

Could the member explain why the Liberal government did not implement public hearings to improve this bill, which seems to have some serious flaws?

Mr. David McGuinty: 

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?

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): 

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Ottawa South for a very cogent presentation on the number of issues that we are looking at. I am surprised I have not heard anyone in the House today give us the words of the CEO of CNOOC so we know what kind of people will be taking over Nexen.

The CEO of CNOOC, Wang Yilin, is quoted in the August 29 Wall Street Journal as referring to his offshore resources as “our national territory and a strategic weapon”. I know CSIS is concerned about national security concerns, yet they do not seem to be troubling the Prime Minister.

I want to emphasize again that if the Canada-China investment treaty goes through, questions such as the one that I heard from the member for Ottawa South will be answered for us.

Article 7 of that treaty says, “A Contracting Party may not require that an enterprise of that Party…appoint individuals of any particular nationality to senior management positions”.

We are discussing something today that is inextricably linked to something we are not discussing, which is the Canada-China investment treaty. I invite my friend’s comments on that.

Mr. David McGuinty: 

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the government is proceeding surreptitiously.

These are major changes. These are risky propositions that we have not even had a chance to examine, not only in the House but in committee as well. Canadians have not been engaged. I do not know if the major industrial sectors in our country have been engaged. They may have been. They may not have been. I do not know whether other groups in Canadian society have been asked to comment on the merits of this proposed treaty.

What we are seeing is a kind of underhandedness that is disrespectful of Parliament and disrespectful of Canadians. Under the guise of promoting trade, running around the world and saying that we are the only ones open for business, carries with it a certain amount of risk because it actually weakens Canada’s negotiation position, I think, with different foreign entities like China.

The comments that were referred to earlier are precisely the kind of comments we should be examining in committee. In fact, we should be calling for the president and CEO of CNOOC to appear before committee to explain those kind of comments so we have a better understanding of what is at stake.

However, once again, there will be transaction after transaction coming forward. Until we flesh out the net benefit test appropriate for Canadians, we will go from crisis to crisis. There are many deals in the pipeline ready to be negotiated right now in the oil patch, and people are watching very carefully as to how Parliament is going to proceed.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5731179&Language=E

M. David McGuinty (Ottawa-Sud, Lib.):

Monsieur le Président, c’est un privilège d’être ici aujourd’hui pour débattre de cette très importante motion d’opposition présentée par le NPD.

Il s’agit d’une motion importante pour trois raisons. Premièrement, on y demande des consultations publiques au sujet d’une entente en particulier, l’entente Nexen-CNOOC, qui est actuellement en négociation. Deuxièmement, on y demande des audiences publiques au sujet de la propriété étrangère dans le secteur canadien de l’énergie en général. Troisièmement, on presse le Canada et le gouvernement de clarifier le concept de « l’avantage net » contenu dans la Loi sur Investissement Canada, avant que soit prise une décision concernant ce projet d’acquisition

Pour mémoire, je déclare que le Parti libéral appuiera cette motion. Prenons tout de même quelques instants pour réfléchir à la façon dont nous sommes arrivés au point où nous en sommes aujourd’hui.

Le projet d’acquisition existe depuis longtemps. Il suit de très près le projet de vente de Potash Corporation, qui avait soulevé tant de préoccupations et de questions semblables. Les parties à l’entente proposée, Nexen et CNOOC, se sont conformées aux règles en vigueur, même si elles savaient que le gouvernement devait supposément modifier la définition du concept de « l’avantage net » contenu dans la Loi sur Investissement Canada.

En fait, le premier ministre et plusieurs ministres de premier plan sont intervenus à la Chambre il y a deux ans et ont promis qu’un examen majeur de ce qui constitue un avantage net pour le Canada serait entrepris. Cet examen n’a jamais été fait, même si l’on savait parfaitement bien que cette transaction ainsi que d’autres étaient en cours de négociation.

Mon collègue, le député d’Halifax-Ouest, porte-parole libéral en matière d’industrie, a présenté une motion au comité de l’industrie il y a presque neuf mois. Permettez-moi de vous la lire. Elle est simple et va droit au but. Il a proposé que le Comité permanent de l’industrie, des sciences et de la technologie entreprenne une étude de la Loi sur Investissement Canada et présente un rapport de cette étude à la Chambre.

Le comité a bel et bien décidé d’effectuer l’étude, mais nous ne savons pas vraiment ce qui s’y est dit. Une fois de plus, les délibérations se sont tenues à huis clos, derrière des portes fermées. Les conservateurs ont très fréquemment recours à ce beau stratagème pour tous les comités afin de censurer l’accès à l’information

Depuis, plus rien. Le gouvernement a-t-il rappelé le comité pendant la pause estivale pour reprendre l’étude? Non. A-t-il produit une étude comparative de ce que les autres pays ont fait dans une situation semblable? Non. A-t-il cerné et rendu publics les aspects fondamentaux à prendre en considération mis à part les six facteurs énumérés à l’article 20 de la Loi sur Investissement Canada? Absolument pas. Voilà où nous en sommes.

Les actionnaires et les membres des conseils d’administration des deux compagnies ont approuvé la transaction. Ils croient qu’elle sert leurs intérêts. Je n’y vois pas d’inconvénient. Il devrait en être ainsi dans un marché libre. Toutefois, il n’est pas seulement question des intérêts des actionnaires, mais aussi de ceux de tous les Canadiens.

C’est l’irresponsabilité et l’incompétence du gouvernement conservateur qui nous ont conduits au point où nous en sommes maintenant. Le gouvernement a été irresponsable et incompétent en ne clarifiant pas le concept de l’avantage net. Il a été irresponsable et incompétent en envoyant le premier ministre et les ministres partout dans le monde pour obtenir des investissements de pays comme la Chine, en sachant fort bien que des transactions comme celle de Nexen, ou n’importe quelle des autres ententes faisant actuellement l’objet de négociations dans le secteur pétrolier, seraient très controversées. Le gouvernement a agi de manière irresponsable et incompétente en refusant de répondre aux questions que les libéraux posent depuis des semaines, soit parce qu’il a peur d’admettre qu’il n’a pas les réponses à ces questions, soit parce qu’il a peur de dire la vérité aux Canadiens.

Les Canadiens ne croient pas que nos intérêts sont pris en compte et qu’ils sont protégés. Ce projet d’acquisition les inquiète grandement, et ils ont hâte d’obtenir des renseignements supplémentaires sur la transaction, ses conséquences et ses effets à long terme sur l’un des pans les plus importants du secteur des ressources naturelles.

[Français]

Le gouvernement conservateur avait promis de revoir la notion d’« avantage net » pour le Canada en ce qui concerne la prise de contrôle par des intérêts étrangers à la suite du rejet de l’offre de PotashCorp, en octobre 2010. En raison de son inaction, le Canada doit actuellement faire face à une vague de prises de contrôle par des investissements étrangers, et les règles n’ont pas été clarifiées.

Nous comprenons qu’il est nécessaire que le gouvernement garde une certaine souplesse pour exercer son jugement étant donné qu’il n’y a pas deux ententes identiques, mais nous croyons également que la prise de contrôle par des intérêts étrangers doit se faire sous le signe de la transparence, et les Canadiens devraient être informés des garanties qui seront accordées et de la raison pour laquelle une transaction est considérée comme un « avantage net » pour les Canadiens.

Soyons très clairs, les libéraux sont en faveur des investissements étrangers, mais depuis 2006 — surtout depuis 2010 —, nous demandons plus de clarté en matière de prise de contrôle par des sociétés étrangères.

Le gouvernement est incapable de faire preuve de transparence et, de toute évidence, de donner l’impression que la procédure ne reposera pas sur des considérations strictement politiques. Pour le bien-être de notre économie et des investissements étrangers à venir, les règles doivent être claires.

[Traduction]

Comme je l’ai dit, la loi doit prévoir une certaine souplesse puisque aucune transaction n’est identique. Il y a des questions très importantes auxquelles il faut répondre afin que les Canadiens soient informés des garanties qui seront accordées et de la raison pour laquelle une transaction est considérée comme un avantage net pour le Canada.

Premièrement, puisque nous n’avons pas de stratégie énergétique nationale au Canada, même si notre parti et le gouvernement de l’Alberta en réclament une depuis plus de six ans, comment cette transaction et d’autres transactions similaires s’inscrivent-elles dans notre avenir énergétique et climatique?

Il ne fait aucun doute que, en raison de l’approche que nous avons adoptée sur le plan de l’énergie, les transactions continueront à se succéder. Il y a déjà eu le projet Keystone, puis le projet d’oléoduc Northern Gateway — un autre fiasco des conservateurs d’après Jim Prentice — et, maintenant, le projet d’acquisition de Nexen. Les conservateurs vont de crise en crise au lieu de mettre en place une stratégie énergétique nationale qui apporterait notamment des changements à la Loi sur Investissement Canada.

Je vais prendre un instant pour répondre à la question du premier ministre, qui a réagi aux demandes de la première ministre Redford concernant l’instauration d’une stratégie énergétique nationale en disant qu’il n’avait aucune idée de ce dont elle parlait. Je vais expliquer au premier ministre ce que nous voulons dire quand nous parlons de cette stratégie.

Il faut se fonder sur les travaux préliminaires effectués par les ministres des provinces et du fédéral dans le respect strict des compétences provinciales. La stratégie nationale porterait sur les éléments clés suivants: la réforme de la réglementation; l’efficacité énergétique; les données énergétiques; les marchés; le commerce international; la technologie de réseaux intelligents; la fiabilité du réseau électrique; les codes et les normes de construction ainsi que l’efficacité du transport.

Nous devrions aussi mener un examen exhaustif et transparent des programmes provinciaux et fédéraux ainsi que des incitatifs fiscaux et des mesures fiscales dissuasives visant tous les volets du secteur de l’énergie: les combustibles fossiles, les biocombustibles ainsi que l’énergie éolienne, solaire, géothermique et nucléaire. Cet examen devrait être mené dans le but de faciliter la réduction des émissions de carbone au Canada. Voilà ce sur quoi les marchés mondiaux misent à l’heure actuelle.

Il faut par contre soulever davantage de questions. Dans le secteur de l’énergie, quelle devrait être la participation maximale dans une société? Devrait-on la fixer à 49 %? Devrait-on n’établir aucune limite? Si une entreprise s’engage à garder son siège social au Canada et qu’elle ne tient pas sa promesse, que faire? De même, CNOOC a promis de conserver les 3 000 emplois de Nexen et de garder l’équipe de gestion actuellement en place. Qu’arrivera-t-il si elle ne tient pas parole? Comment pouvons-nous les obliger à respecter leurs engagements? Quand devons-nous exiger que des Canadiens siègent au conseil d’administration, et combien de Canadiens doivent y siéger? Que penser des Canadiens qui siègent à des conseils d’administration d’entreprises étrangères qui ont dans leur mire des sociétés canadiennes?

En ce qui a trait aux intérêts du Canada en matière de sécurité nationale dont a récemment parlé le SCRS, quand devons-nous leur accorder priorité au détriment d’une possible transaction? Quels sont exactement ces intérêts en matière de sécurité nationale? Visent-ils les technologies de l’information? Les secrets commerciaux? La propriété intellectuelle? Les brevets? Il faut répondre à ces questions.

Comment traitons-nous les sociétés d’État en comparaison avec les entreprises privées ou les sociétés par actions? Devrait-on tenir compte du respect des droits de la personne dans les pays d’où provient l’entreprise acheteuse?

Que faire si des Canadiens ont investi dans une entreprise canadienne grâce au gouvernement? Il pourrait s’agir d’une aide financière directe — par l’intermédiaire d’un programme d’aide — ou d’une aide fiscale — par l’amortissement de biens sur une courte période de temps, par exemple. Quoi qu’il en soit, il s’agit d’un investissement fait par un contribuable canadien dans une société canadienne. Si une entreprise a reçu l’aide de contribuables canadiens de l’une ou l’autre de ces façons, comment devrions-nous considérer cet investissement puisque ce sont des Canadiens qui ont investi? Le contribuable canadien devrait-il recevoir une compensation? Devrions-nous exiger qu’on lui rembourse une partie de son argent?

Voici une autre question soulevée par cette transaction, et le gouvernement, en collaboration avec tous les partis, aurait d’ailleurs dû se pencher sur ce dossier en comité il y a de cela des mois sinon des années: faut-il instaurer des limites à la participation des sociétés étrangères dans les entreprises ou dans les industries canadiennes?

Selon certaines estimations, à l’heure actuelle, les deux tiers de la production des sables pétrolifères au Canada appartiennent déjà à des entreprises étrangères détenues par des actionnaires. Est-ce un facteur qu’on doit prendre en compte? Est-ce qu’on doit continuer d’autoriser une telle situation? Est-ce que cette part de la production, soit deux tiers, est trop élevée, convenable ou trop faible? Rien de tout cela n’a été examiné à la lumière des faits ou analysé dans un contexte approprié, par exemple par le Comité de l’industrie.

Les Canadiens se posent une autre question importante au sujet de cette transaction: pourront-ils investir dans le pays d’origine de l’acheteur? Si ce n’est pas le cas, que devrions-nous envisager de demander en contrepartie? Que devrions-nous chercher à obtenir de ce pays? Par exemple, certains ont dit que dans ce cas, le Canada devrait demander un meilleur accès au secteur des services financiers afin que les banques canadiennes, par exemple, puissent étendre leurs activités dans un énorme marché.

J’ai une autre question. Les lois canadiennes en matière de travail et d’environnement seront-elles respectées entièrement? Quelles conditions devront être respectées en ce qui concerne la mise en valeur des collectivités et l’engagement social?

Il ne fait aucun doute que la mise en application des lois est liée de très près à chacune de ces questions. Or, il est essentiel de poser ces questions, car les réponses que nous obtiendrons auront des répercussions sur nos emplois, l’innovation, les technologies, les brevets et la propriété intellectuelle. Les réponses à ces questions auront aussi des répercussions sur l’investissement des capitaux canadiens, l’amélioration et le maintien de nos compétences dans nos domaines de spécialité, nos méthodes de gestion et même nos droits de propriété. Ce sont les réponses à ces questions qui nous permettront de déterminer si les entreprises canadiennes peuvent soutenir la concurrence sur les marchés mondiaux. Cela dit, aucune de ces questions n’a encore été abordée, malgré la promesse que le gouvernement a faite.

Or, le Canada est en ce moment coincé. En fait, ce sont le premier ministre et ses ministres qui sont coincés, car ils sont allés partout dans le monde pour annoncer que nous sommes disposés à faire des affaires. Ils ont dit à tous de venir au Canada, que tout était à vendre, au prix le plus élevé. Cependant, nous nous trouvons maintenant dans une situation où un dossier en particulier devient un secret du Cabinet, où l’avantage net ne peut pas être évalué comme il se doit en raison de la façon dont il est en ce moment défini dans la loi, et où le Canada est vulnérable.

Je propose que tous les partis s’unissent au Comité de l’industrie, appuient la motion de mon collègue, qui vise à entreprendre un examen approfondi de cet enjeu, et présentent par la suite des renseignements éclairés à tous les parlementaires afin qu’ils puissent en tirer des enseignements et évaluer comme il se doit l’avantage net pour les Canadiens à l’avenir.

[Français]

Mme Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NPD):

Monsieur le Président, on sait que les Canadiens demandent plus de transparence dans ce dossier. On sait aussi qu’il n’est écrit nulle part dans loi qu’un processus légal exclut les consultations publiques.

Le député pourrait-il nous dire s’il ne serait pas plus pertinent et politiquement gagnant de tenir ces fameuses consultations publiques?

M. David McGuinty:

Monsieur le Président, je dirais à ma collègue du Nouveau Parti démocratique que l’institution appelée la Chambre des communes dépense presque 500 millions de dollars par année — 500 millions de dollars!

Selon moi, le travail qui doit être effectué dans ce cas devrait avoir lieu au Comité permanent de l’industrie. Nous avons déjà investi dans le comité: les membres, le personnel, tout est là. Et quant à la question de faire valoir les points de vue de la société canadienne, je dirais que ça se fait facilement au comité. Au lieu d’aller tenir des consultations à l’extérieur de la Chambre, on peut facilement convoquer les gens ici, procéder par l’intermédiaire d’ordinateurs, consulter les gens par Internet, par exemple. On peut ainsi économiser l’argent des contribuables canadiens et faire le travail nécessaire.

M. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Monsieur le Président, mon collègue a soulevé d’excellents points, mais j’aimerais en développer un en particulier. Si nous concluons cet accord, que rapportera-t-il aux entreprises canadiennes?

Le député a parlé d’éventuelles possibilités pour le secteur bancaire si le commerce avec la Chine s’intensifie. Jeffrey Simpson a cependant soulevé la question de la réciprocité. Il a expliqué que si nous voulons vraiment juger de la valeur de cet accord, il faut l’envisager dans l’autre sens. Si une entreprise canadienne essayait de conclure une telle entente en Chine, réussirait-elle? Je pense que la seule réponse à cette question est non.

Mon collègue convient-il qu’il faut que l’entreprise canadienne y trouve son compte? Quels secteurs de l’entreprise canadienne profiteront d’une intensification du commerce avec la Chine?

M. David McGuinty:

Monsieur le Président, il ne fait aucun doute que les chances ne sont pas vraiment égales dans ce genre d’acquisition et en ce qui concerne la recherche de réciprocité avec les autorités chinoises.

Je pense que la Chine est un État en pleine transition. Au cours des deux dernières décennies, elle a franchi une distance énorme et elle continue de progresser. Ce pays est aux prises avec le poids de 400 à 500 millions de personnes qui vivent avec environ 8 $ par jour. Elle a donc des défis internes.

Je pense, dans ce dossier, que la possibilité de négocier avec la Chine est importante. Je ne veux toutefois pas montrer la Chine du doigt. Je suis certain que mon collègue ne le veut pas non plus. Il y a de nombreux pays qui s’intéresseront de très près au secteur canadien des ressources naturelles et, d’ailleurs, aux ressources en eau à l’avenir. La véritable question est de savoir comment aborder chacune de ces demandes d’examen.

Nous devons veiller à ce que cela soit avantageux pour les Canadiens, les actionnaires canadiens, les sociétés canadiennes, l’ensemble des Canadiens et, surtout, les emplois canadiens. Nous devons être vigilants pour que les emplois se trouvent ici. Il y a suffisamment d’emplois qui passent de l’Amérique du Nord à l’Asie du Sud-Est à l’heure actuelle.

À mon avis, le secteur des services financiers est une possibilité, suivi du secteur manufacturier et du secteur touristique, pour ne nommer que ceux-là. C’est exactement ce que le comité devrait examiner en détail.

[Français]

Mme Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NPD):

Monsieur le Président, j’aimerais remercier le confrère d’Ottawa-Sud de son excellent discours. Je dois dire qu’il soulève en effet beaucoup de questions

Ma question pour mon collègue concerne la Loi sur Investissement Canada. On la connaît, elle a été changée quelque peu sans vraiment qu’on y apporte des changements majeurs et elle est là depuis 1985.

Pourrait-il m’expliquer pourquoi, sous le gouvernement libéral, il n’y a pas eu l’instauration d’audiences publiques pour améliorer cette loi qui semble comporter de sérieuse lacunes?

M. David McGuinty:

Monsieur le Président, on pourrait passer notre temps à examiner ce qui s’est passé il y a 15, 20, 30 ou 40 ans. Au lieu de cela, je préfère traiter de la question dont nous sommes maintenant saisis. Comment amener du progrès pour les Canadiens et les Canadiennes dans ce domaine? Par exemple, comme pays, où allons-nous dans le secteur énergétique, grosso modo, partout au Canada?

C’est pourquoi pendant mon allocution, j’ai soulevé la nécessité de créer une stratégie nationale pour l’énergie qui toucherait en même temps une vraie stratégie nationale pour le changement climatique. En effet, les deux sont extrêmement liés. C’est impossible de les déconnecter.

Donc pour moi, la grande, la vraie question ne consiste pas à regarder en arrière, mais à regarder en avant. Comme parlementaires, comment allons-nous procéder pour améliorer la situation au Canada?

[Traduction]

Mme Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, PV):

Monsieur le Président, je félicite le député d’Ottawa-Sud de son exposé très pertinent sur les nombreux enjeux en cause dans ce dossier. Je suis surprise qu’aucun député n’ait encore jugé bon aujourd’hui de citer le PDG de CNOOC pour que nous sachions quel genre de personne s’apprête à prendre les rênes de Nexen.

Selon l’édition du 29 août du Wall Street Journal, le PDG de CNOOC, Wang Yilin, aurait qualifié ses ressources extracôtières de « territoire national » et d’« arme stratégique ». Je sais que le SCRS s’inquiète pour la sécurité nationale, mais cela ne semble pas troubler le premier ministre.

Je tiens à rappeler que si l’accord concernant les investissements entre le Canada et la Chine est ratifié, d’autres se chargeront de répondre à notre place aux questions comme celles que pose le député d’Ottawa-Sud

Selon l’article 7 de cet accord, « une partie contractante ne peut exiger qu’une de ses entreprises [...] nomme des personnes d’une nationalité déterminée aux postes de dirigeants ».

Nous débattons aujourd’hui d’un sujet qui est inextricablement lié à un autre qui n’est pas abordé, à savoir l’accord concernant les investissements entre le Canada et la Chine. J’invite le député à nous dire ce qu’il en pense.

M. David McGuinty:

Monsieur le Président, il n’est pas surprenant que le gouvernement agisse en douce.

Il s’agit de changements majeurs, de propositions risquées que nous n’avons même pas eu la possibilité d’examiner, ni à la Chambre ni au comité. Les Canadiens n’ont pas été consultés. Je ne sais pas si les principaux secteurs industriels de notre pays ont été consultés. Peut-être que oui, peut-être que non. Je ne sais pas si on a demandé à d’autres groupes de la société canadienne de se prononcer sur les avantages de l’accord proposé.

Les cachotteries auxquelles se livre le gouvernement sont un manque de respect envers le Parlement et les Canadiens. Sous prétexte de promouvoir les échanges commerciaux, les ministériels parcourent le monde et disent que nous sommes le seul pays prêt à brasser des affaires. Cette attitude comporte certains risques, car, à mon avis, elle affaiblit la position de négociation du Canada auprès des autres pays, comme la Chine.

Les commentaires auxquels on a fait référence plus tôt font précisément partie de ceux que nous devrions examiner au comité. En fait, nous devrions demander au président-directeur général de CNOOC de comparaître devant le comité pour expliquer ce genre de commentaire, afin que nous comprenions mieux les enjeux.

Cependant, je le répète, les transactions se succéderont à l’avenir. Tant que nous n’aurons pas défini le critère de l’avantage net approprié pour les Canadiens, nous traverserons crise après crise. De nombreuses transactions sont en attente dans le secteur pétrolier, prêtes à être négociées. Les gens suivent de près les décisions que prendra le Parlement.

[Français]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5731179&Language=F

The MP was joined by Christine Todd Whitman, the former governor of New Jersey and four other delegates, a group that included international election experts, for a week-long review of the conditions and preparations in place for the election.
McGuinty said that being part of the delegation is a great honour and privilege.

“I have met a few people in my own riding who are originally from Ukraine and they tell me they are very worried about the state of Ukrainian democracy and whether the rule of law will thrive and whether or not this election will be conducted impartially, fair and transparent,” he said.
The delegation will meet with election and government officials, political competitors, civil society organizations, and the media to gather information about the country’s election process.

“It is an opportunity for me to contribute to something meaningful (to) the Ukrainian electoral environment, but at the same time learn from it and bring Canadian experience to bear in very practical ways,” added McGuinty.

The delegation will release a report highlighting its findings at the conclusion of the mission.
The report will look at the Ukraine’s existing legal framework, how the election was run, the political environment for the campaigns and whether there was any intimidation or harassment of candidates.

It will also highlight legal mechanisms available for any problems during the election and possible future reforms.
“It is going to be important to report out to the world,” said McGuinty.

Canada will be sending 500 observers to help monitor the elections.

In a statement early last month, Jason Kenney, minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said that Canada has a long and proud history of providing observers to countries to help ensure free and fair elections.

“These elections are critical to a democratic and prosperous Ukraine. We are proud that Canadian election observers, many from the Ukrainian-Canadian community, will continue to stand by the people of Ukraine.”

The deployment of Canadian election observers will help assess the credibility of the elections in Ukraine, including steps in the months leading up to the elections. It will also observe voting day conditions and procedures of the Oct. 28 election.
—–
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE PRE-ELECTION DELEGATION TO UKRAINE is available at http://www.ndi.org/node/19302

Read the full story in Your Ottawa Region.

Read the full story in the Montreal Gazette.

“The sustainable development of our natural resources is important to Canada, for the health of our environment and the health of our economy. Large-scale developments, like the Keystone XL pipeline, the oil sands and the Northern Gateway proposal, must adhere to the most stringent environmental assessment and review.

This Conservative government has eroded the federal role in monitoring these developments and has shown no interest in engaging with the provinces. Only the federal government can convene a First Ministers Meeting to coordinate a national, coherent energy strategy. The responsibility for the future of Canada’s resource development and energy sector rests solely on their shoulders.”

-30-

“There needs to be an immediate and urgent review,” said David McGuinty, [Liberal MP for] Ottawa South and the party’s natural resources critic.

Read the full story in the London Free Press.

The Liberal MP received all-party support to become the president of Globe Canada on June 12.

“I am very humbled to have been elected by all parties to begin building some cross-party momentum,” said McGuinty.

The Canadian chapter of Globe International has been inactive for too long, said McGuinty, who promised to re-energize the organization.

One of the issues the chapter will follow closely is Canada’s progress in reducing its greenhouse emissions by 17 per cent of 2005-levels by 2020, he said.

“We’ll see what is happening, how well this is going, and what can legislators in all parties do to take actions on issues as important as climate change,” he said.

McGuinty said he hopes legislators can help re-establish Canadian credibility internationally.

“Canada as a country, we have multilateralism in our DNA, and I really get concerned with some of the choices being made by the government today about our multilateral role and responsibilities – including losing a United Nations Security Council seat. I find that difficult as a former UN official,” he said.

McGuinty said the choices made by Canada’s Conservative government won’t make the chapter’s work any easier.

“I don’t think anyone can afford to lose hope in this regard,” said McGuinty.

“These issues are too important to let languish and that is why I am excited to take this on and work with all sides of the house to build this momentum.”

McGuinty said he hopes to re-energize the Canadian chapter of Globe International.

“We are rebooting our chapter, re-energizing it and reconstituting it with MPs from all sides of the house who want to form a community of interest in the House of Commons,” he said. “The fact that our chapter was not active was problematic to me.”

McGuinty said he wants to build a chapter with members who are not overly partisan to tackle issues of interest to the majority of Canadians.

“It means I bring to bear all my local and international experience working on economic trade and environmental issues and even local issues,” said McGuinty, adding that those issues transcend any one party, any one order of government and constituency.

“This is too big and too important for us to allow these differences to get in our way.”

Globe International was founded in 1989 by legislators from the U.S. Congress, European Parliament, Japanese Diet and the Russian State Duma with the mission to respond to urgent environmental challenges through the development and advancement of complimentary legislation.

Today Globe chapters have been established in the parliaments of most G20 countries and EU member states.

“It is all about trying to get legislators from countries across the world to come together to ensure governments where they are active, are following through on their promises to make improvements when it comes to environment and economy,” said McGuinty.

Read the full story in the Ottawa South EMC.

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.

Mr. David McGuinty: previous intervention next intervention
Madam Speaker, good morning, after a marathon of debate and voting in the last 30 hours.

I would like to focus on some of the practical everyday aspects and impacts of this bill, legislation which the Liberal Party of Canada will not be supporting.

There are a few things that viewers and people reading Hansard might want to know. This bill is a carbon copy of a previous copyright bill, old Bill C-32, which had been brought before the House. The government has refused to amend the bill in any way, shape, or form, either through legislative amendments put by parties, or based on the sound evidence and testimony given by folks who deal with this sector day in and day out.

Let us look at some of the testimony we heard at the industry committee just in the last seven days.

It deals with the question of digital locks. As my colleague said, it would say to families, housewives, fathers and single moms or dads that when taking their kids to a soccer tournament, for example, they would not be able to copy a film to play in the car during the eight-hour ride to Windsor. If they did make a copy, they would be subject to prosecution.

There are a couple of other elements.

We heard from the CEO of UBM TechInsights, which is an Ottawa-based world-class company. Its job is to protect intellectual property for creators and owners. It is sort of like a CSI crime lab. It helps inventors and owners in the intellectual property area.

Mr. Harry Page, the CEO of the company, explained to the committee that his company employs some very extensive reverse engineering technologies, so-called forensic techniques. They are used to help people identify instances where there is an infringement. It helps them prove that to enforce their intellectual property rights.

The problem, of course, is that the digital lock measures in the bill would prevent that company from breaking a digital lock even if it is placed on a device by someone who is pirating another company’s hardware or software.

Why would the government want to make it illegal for a company like UBM TechInsights to break a digital lock to prove a theft, for example, on behalf of a client? It makes no sense. Why would the government aid and abet software pirates? Why is the government not protecting companies like UBM TechInsights that have hundreds of employees and carry out this work on a global basis?

There is another practical example of the impact this legislation would have.

Campus Stores Canada testified at committee. It is a major supplier of books in the academic settings across the country, in colleges, CEGEPs and universities. Its representative said that the bill would have a negative impact on more than 100 vendor and supplier associates. The Campus Stores Canada representative testified that the new copyright act would increase the cost of Canadian textbooks by as much as 15%.

I am blessed with four kids at home, three of whom are in college and university, and I can attest to my own kids’ struggles with the cost of textbooks. They work at part-time jobs and search long and hard for used textbooks, which are often not available. They have to buy new textbooks every year. That is the way the teaching system works. It is hard for young people.

Why, as the Campus Stores Canada representative testified, would it want to bring in a 15% increase on the over one million students that it serves? Of course, the company does not want to do this, but this is another practical impact of what the government is pursuing.

There is a third example, and it was picked up on by my colleague a moment ago when he read into the record some testimony from Professor Ian Hargreaves. Professor Ian Hargreaves is not just another professor in the area of intellectual property. He was the person who conducted the definitive study in Britain last year on intellectual property. It is the number one study in the United Kingdom.

It is important for Canada to look to other jurisdictions to determine how they have done it comparatively. They are struggling with the same thing.

I want to re-emphasize what Professor Hargreaves said in committee in the last several days. It was basically that the notion that informs this legislation, which is something that the conservative movement has seized upon now in its present form for many years, is about tougher enforcement. The government is going to be tougher about enforcement. We often hear that, and we often ask why the government would not want to be as tough on the causes of crime, for example, as the government says it is on the crime itself.

Professor Hargreaves said that the United Kingdom has a law in place making it unlawful to copy a song from a laptop to an MP3 player. He basically said that this was a big mistake. It has not worked in the United Kingdom. He went on to say, “The continued unlawfulness of copying a song from a laptop to an MP3 player is something which has not been tenable for really quite some time. The law needs to be sensible.” The law he referred to as making “reasonable sense to reasonable people”.

We have a situation where the government, with full knowledge of other experiences in other jurisdictions, is simply saying it does not want to change or improve this bill. Perhaps the Conservatives are motivated by such partisanship that they cannot accept good amendments from other parties. It is very unfortunate if that is the case. Perhaps they are under inordinate pressure and undue influence from the United States, which has a very powerful entertainment industry. Perhaps they are under pressure from forces in Los Angeles and Hollywood that are very worried about the growth of Canada’s film industry, of the success in Toronto and Vancouver and even in cities like my city, Ottawa, where increasing numbers of films and recordings are being pursued.

I do not know what the motivation is, but it is unfortunate that the government does not see fit to work with Parliament. That is why we come to work here every day. We come to work to improve things. We have here a case where the definitive author of the biggest study in the United Kingdom in years testified that it just does not work, so why do we not actually pursue another way?

That is why we put forward a number of amendments to try to overcome these difficulties. We ask again, why will the government not amend Bill C-11 to allow consumers to break a digital lock for personal use, for what we call non-infringing purposes? Why would the government want to send a signal to the millions of Canadians who occasionally copy this kind of material for personal use that they had better watch out because they are going to be hunted down? It sort of portrays, and I am not sure if it is ignorance or just an unwillingness to see where society is on these issues.

I have four teenage kids who spend a lot of time doing creative work, listening to creative work, participating in creative work. It is now part and parcel of what they do in school. It is part and parcel of what they do in society.

Seniors are increasingly turning to online solutions. Very many seniors in my riding of Ottawa South are now doing online banking. They are pursuing online entertainment searches. Some of them have mobility problems, or perhaps are disabled.

I do not understand why the government has this pig-headedness, this hard-headedness about not wanting to improve the bill based on these practical issues that have been raised and practical solutions that have been proffered by both the U.K. experience and by parliamentarians here on the floor.

I would like to close by saying that, yes, it is important to improve and modernize our Copyright Act, but it is not a serious venture when the government carbon copies the previous facsimile of it, brings it to the floor of the House, and says, “Here, do it again. We are not interested in improving this,” when there is goodwill and good faith to do so.

Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Does he agree that this copyright reform has a lot in common with the policies of our neighbours to the south, and that it is basically a cut-and-paste job? Is the government essentially copying the American vision, adding nothing more than a “Royal Canadian” sticker?
next intervention previous intervention [Table of Contents]

Mr. David McGuinty:
Madam Speaker, first, we have to be very careful. Our American neighbours have their own interests at heart, and we have to respect that. In this case, it is clear that the Americans have had a major influence on the Conservative government.

Diplomatic cables recently revealed information showing that some parts of the Conservative bill were drafted to address concerns expressed by the American industry rather than issues of interest to Canadians. That is what is going on.

We have responsibilities here as Canadian lawmakers. We have to protect our own creative sector. Quebec, for example, has world-famous producers, filmmakers and writers.

We have to protect our own interests. I am not here to criticize American society, which has to protect its own interests. Still, it is outrageous that this bill has been influenced by so much pressure from the United States.

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): previous intervention
Madam Speaker, one issue in the bill is of direct concern to people in my riding and across Alberta. We have a wonderful university called Athabasca University where everybody learns online. Students need to access materials online. The bill would digitally lock material, which would self-destruct within five days, and the course materials would have to be destroyed after no more than 30 days.

Could the hon. member speak to that? Does he think there should be accommodation? We want to protect creators. I have been an academic. We value the work of writers, but at the same time we want to try to encourage the people, particularly in aboriginal communities and isolated rural communities, to beef up their skills.

Surely there should be greater provisions to support those people who make an effort to further their education. They should be able to access that information for a longer time period.

Mr. David McGuinty:
Madam Speaker, when I first read these provisions in the bill, I was reminded of the beginning of the famous Mission Impossible series of films, in which the Mission Impossible person is asked to take on a mission, if he agrees to do so, at the end of which, once he agrees, the tape self-destructs in 30 seconds.

As a former university teacher, that is just not how learning works. Young people today use information of this kind that is available online and elsewhere and they learn in learning blocks. They often have to return to foundational learning blocks to build on them to make progress, particularly in our trade sector.

Information, when it comes to trade skills, learning skills that build one on the other to provide a good workforce for our Canadian economy, it is just not realistic to ask them to destroy material in that kind of timeline.

Again, it is not steeped in reality and perhaps not even steeped in the real interests of Canadians.