Evidence of meeting #2 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Richard Dicerni  Deputy Minister, Department of Industry
Paul Boothe  Senior Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Industry

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Good afternoon everyone. I would like to welcome the witnesses who are appearing before our committee.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the industry committee.

I'd like to welcome our four witnesses today. In particular I'd like to thank Minister Clement for appearing in front of our committee today. I know that you often don't have a lot of time, and we appreciate the two hours you've taken out of your busy schedule to appear in front of us. Also, you are appearing in front of this committee on very short notice, having been asked only last Friday to make this appearance. So thank you very much.

Before we begin, I'd just like to make a few remarks to the committee. Members of the committee will have copies of the supplementary estimates B relevant to the votes referred to in this committee. They were taken from the Treasury Board website.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), the supplementary estimates will be deemed to have been reported three days before the end of the supply period--in other words, three days before March 26--or no later than three sitting days before the last allotted day in the supply period, which is yet to be determined. Right now it stands at no later than March 26.

The minister and his officials will have 20 minutes to make their opening statements. We will then follow with a round of questions based on the order established in the routine motions last adopted. After the questioning on the part of the members of this committee, we will take the last 10 minutes of this meeting, before 5:30, to go through the votes for each of the items in the supplementary estimates B, and then we'll vote on reporting the estimates back to the House. So we'll end the questioning of the witnesses 10 to 15 minutes before 5:30 so that we can go through the votes on the supplementary estimates.

Without further ado, I invite the Honourable Tony Clement to take the floor.

3:35 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Industry

Thank you very much, Chair, and let me thank you and members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for the invitation to speak today.

Before I begin, I’d like to introduce my deputy minister, Richard Dicerni, my senior associate deputy minister, Paul Boothe, and our chief financial officer, Kevin Lindsey.

I don't need to tell any of you that we meet today at a crossroads. Since last fall, the global economic situation has obviously deteriorated faster than anyone predicted. The global economy has further weakened since Canadians voted in the election last October, and further still since Parliament met last month.

As the crisis emerged it was evident that business needed support to see this period through. In the last few months I've met personally with business leaders and workers across the country. These discussions highlighted the fact that Canadians are looking to us to respond with forceful, creative measures that will bring Canada out of this crisis and will build a base for continued growth in the future.

About a month ago the Prime Minister met with first ministers to consult with them on how to meet these expectations. They agreed to accelerate infrastructure investments, strengthen financial market regulation, improve competitiveness, and ensure labour market preparedness and flexibility so we can respond quickly when the economy recovers.

Fortunately, while we face great challenges, we are standing on a very solid foundation, the best in the G-8. In the past four budgets, the government has worked to support a competitive marketplace and to create an investment climate that enables Canada to successfully compete against the world on the basis of its innovative products, services, and technologies.

And because of our government’s track record of prudent fiscal and economic management, we are much better able to address the current downturn than most of our competitors.

Since 2006, we have dramatically reduced corporate, personal and sales taxes – making Canada more competitive internationally and ensuring that Canadians have more money to spend.

We’ve taken steps to regulate smarter and to reduce the paperwork burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. Enhancements to Canada's scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program are encouraging innovation across all sectors. We invested almost $4 billion in the tax credit in 2007 alone.

In recent weeks we have partnered with Ontario to provide conditional financial support to Canada's auto industry. This assistance will help restructure and renew this vital sector of our economy and ensure that we maintain our share of North American production.

Our budget decisions flow from Advantage Canada, the long-term plan for the Canadian economy that we introduced in 2006. This strategy has led us to pay down a significant amount of our national debt, reduce taxes for all Canadians, build a more competitive business environment, invest in worker training and education, and launch the largest infrastructure rebuilding initiative since World War II.

Now Budget 2009 builds on this solid base. It recognizes that in these challenging economic times, we must work harder than ever to seize economic opportunities and to run with them, to create jobs, to develop new products and to find new markets. Our economic action plan includes measures to stabilize the Canadian economy, create jobs, and support sustainable growth that will further Canada's competitiveness.

My department, Industry Canada, is active in overseeing and implementing initiatives in support of these goals. Some of the top-of-mind issues that we have been dealing with, and will continue to deal with, include science and technology, manufacturing, and support for small business. Certainly we are attempting to create a climate that encourages business innovation and productivity, and this type of climate is what will allow us to innovate, to move up the global value chain, and to compete with our international competitors.

Let me touch briefly on some of these issues. First is science and technology. I don’t have to tell you that S and T innovation is at the heart of Canada's value proposition as a player in the international marketplace. So it comes as no surprise that Canada's S and T strategy was launched by the Prime Minister in 2007, and that the Government of Canada has invested more than $7 billion in helping stimulate economic activity through large-scale investments in S and T over the past four budgets. Of this amount, Budget 2009 accounts for $5.1 billion in S and T investments.

This includes new investments in our universities and colleges to help Canadian researchers make transformative discoveries that contribute to our future well-being and create short-term economic activity and jobs.

The $2 billion national university and college infrastructure program announced in Budget 2009 will leverage matching funds from other partners. A further $750 million investment in the Canada Foundation for Innovation will support high-end research, equipment, labs, and facilities.

Budget 2009 also provides for updating federal labs; extends our information and communications infrastructure through broadband coverage to unserved communities; and, through $500 million for the Canada Health Infoway, encourages greater use of electronic health records and supports knowledge-based jobs across the country.

From the pacemaker to insulin, Canadian researchers have made discoveries that have changed the lives of people around the world. To ensure this continues, the government has substantially increased funding for Canada's federal granting councils, our most direct means of support for academic research. We have increased the funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council by some $40 million a year in Budget 2006, $85 million a year in Budget 2007, and $80 million a year in Budget 2008. Our support for the overhead cost of research has grown by $70 million per year over this time, and these increases are cumulative, ongoing, and permanent.

In addition to the granting councils, some of our best applied science comes from the Canadian Space Agency. I was just in St. Hubert yesterday to celebrate the CSA receiving $110 million over three years in Budget 2009 to develop terrestrial prototypes for space robotic vehicles. From the Canadarm to Dextre, Canadians are proud of our contributions to the international space community, and we want to protect our heritage of leadership in robotics and continue to play a leadership role as we move to the next phases of this technology. We want to remain at the forefront of space robotics with projects such as the Mars Lander and the Lunar Rover. Rovers are electrical vehicles designed to move across the surface of the planet. They could be advanced robots that move automatically, or simpler vehicles controlled from earth or driven by an astronaut. Imagine the pride of Canadians just a few years from now when the vehicle that carries astronauts across the surface of the moon could be Canadian technology. I'm looking forward to that day.

Let me touch briefly on manufacturing. If S and T innovation is at the heart of our economic growth, our manufacturing just might be the backbone. In fact, Canada's manufacturing sector directly contributes to about 15% of our GDP and employs close to 1.9 million Canadians—mostly in full-time jobs. Recently, I don't have to tell this committee, it has faced some challenges, challenges in the automotive and forestry industries in particular, but not exclusively in those industries.

To help lay a foundation for companies today and in the long term, the government is taking action on a range of critical measures to improve access to credit and to enable further investments in productivity-enhancing machinery and equipment.

Other key infrastructure investments include tax relief measures; investments in science, technology, and skills; and targeted industrial support initiatives that will also help to strengthen manufacturers' competitiveness across the country. These include enhanced resources and scope for the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada, as well as new credit facilities to help free up the credit market; a two-year extension on the 50% temporary accelerated capital cost allowance, and measures to provide relief for the purchase of computers and imported machinery and equipment; and assistance for targeted sectors, such as the automotive, forestry, shipbuilding and tourism sectors.

I'd be remiss if I didn't quickly update you on our progress with respect to the auto industry.

As you know, two of the Detroit Three were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy late last year. As President Bush warned and President Obama has reiterated, the situation had the potential to pull down the entire U.S. economy, and therefore needed to be addressed quickly with immediate liquidity.

Recognizing what was at stake, the Government of Canada moved quickly, with the Ontario government, to follow a U.S. $17.4-billion loan package with a package of our own, offered to Canadian subsidiaries of GM and Chrysler. The Canadian offer represents a proportional amount of the U.S. support package and is consistent with Canada's share of the Detroit three's North American production.

We held up our part of the bargain and were ready to provide these loans in December, but GM and Chrysler asked us to defer our negotiations while they worked with the U.S. Treasury. We are committed to ensuring that an orderly restructuring of this industry take place on a North American basis, preserving Canada's share. That means we need to stand ready with liquidity support, and if needed, longer-term loans.

I assure you that we will continue to encourage all stakeholders, automakers, unions, but also parts makers, bondholders, and other governments to come to the table with the objective of ensuring a healthy industry going forward.

On the small-business side of things, the credit crunch has posed a significant problem. I can tell you that the department has faith in small and medium-sized businesses and is already investing in the BDC to provide at least an additional $1.5 billion in financing to help businesses sustain operations and grow. We are injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into the BDC to increase its lending activities, and this will be complemented by significant funds to top up lines of credit from financial institutions for small and medium-sized businesses. This injection of funds will allow the BDC to make financing available to thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada, in all sectors, from manufacturing to science and technology, to construction, to tourism, to forestry, and to commercial fishing.

In addition, Budget 2009 includes the following spending measures to help small businesses and to grow and create new jobs: $200 million over two years to the industrial research assistance program, IRAP, to enable it to temporarily expand its initiatives for small and medium-sized enterprises; $30 million over two years for the Canada business network, which delivers single-window access to reliable, up-to-date, and relevant information to businesses; $10 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to support and mentor young Canadians who are creating new businesses; and increasing the amount of small business income eligible for the reduced federal tax rate of 11% to $500,000 from the current limit of $400,000, as of January 1.

I'd like to thank you for your time this afternoon. Let me reiterate that I think Budget 2009 sets us on the right course. My department is working diligently to shoulder its part of the load. We will ensure that due diligence is completed and that our actions are accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. With innovation as our guide, I'm confident that we will be able to navigate through this economic storm.

I'm interested in answering your questions, so I will stop here, and I'm certainly willing to participate in the discussion.

Thank you, Chair.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you, Minister Clement, for your testimony to our committee.

Before we begin with Mr. Rota, I just want to remind members of the committee to direct their remarks to the chair. That will help us in conducting these meetings.

Mr. Rota.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister for being with us today. It's certainly informative.

I just want to concentrate a bit on the development agencies that have been announced. There's over $1 billion over five years for the new southern Ontario development agency that has been announced, and I'm sure that will help southern Ontario. That's a move in the right direction. There are a lot of opportunities that need to be taken advantage of, and they certainly do need that help. For the new northern development agency, I believe the amount is in the $50 million range.

FedNor, in northern Ontario, continues to exist, and the eastern Ontario development program. The last two are programs, and that's where I'm going with this. Northern and eastern Ontario are provided with a program, not the agency designation. This certainly gives me a message that it's almost as though they're second-class citizens as far as regional economic development goes. Why weren't northern Ontario and eastern Ontario given a designation of agency rather than program?

Could you be specific, Minister Clement, and tell me the amount that was given to each program and agency?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you for the questions.

Indeed, I guess our strategy is “if it ain't broke, don't fix it”. Both FedNor and the EODP have been working well. Obviously, the EODP has been around for a shorter period of time, but as the honourable member knows, FedNor has been around for decades, delivering economic development programs for the north.

When I became minister responsible for FedNor in 2006, I was very pleased to announce that this program, for the first time in its existence, would have a base budget that it could guarantee, that it could rely on for five years running. That amount is $38.4 million, but indeed, there have been some add-ons to that budget over the years, for molecular medicine research, for instance, and a northern Ontario medical school.

Indeed, in this budget, there is an extra $13 million for this year and an extra $13 million for next year, which would bring the NODP budget, the northern Ontario development budget, to $52.77 million, which is the highest it's been under any government. That money is going to northern Ontario in 2009-10 and 2010-11 via the community adjustment fund. From our perspective, that program is working well and should continue to receive our support.

The terms and conditions of SODA, the Southern Ontario Development Agency, have not been finalized yet. There will be announcements in due course.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Maybe I could ask for some clarification. I didn't quite get the answer about differentiating between a program and an agency. Maybe you can just differentiate between the two and tell me why one would get an agency and the other would get a program.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I think in this case, for instance, FedNor has a minister--me. It has terms and conditions that were just recently re-approved, a couple of years ago, I think, in its current form.

We did a consultation throughout northern Ontario through the advisory council. The word back to us from northern Ontarians is that they're interested in results. As for the structure of things, it's something that obviously committees care about and Parliament cares about, but really, what northern Ontarians care about is this: is this agency is doing its job for northern Ontarians and does it have the support of the government? The answer clearly is yes. It's under those auspices that it continues in its present form.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Thank you.

I was going through the economic action plan pamphlet that was handed out. It talks quite extensively about broadband services to rural communities and facilitating Internet access to its citizens. This is something that I know has gone on for a number of years now. What we're looking at is encouraging private development of rural broadband infrastructure.

Now, the point of service is in place in many communities. It's there. It's in place. The challenge is getting the private sector on board. I notice that in one of the points in the brochure you mention that you want to have the private sector come on board, but in all honesty, I don't see how we could get the private sector on board if it's not worthwhile for them. It really is expensive for that last mile, or in the places where the density clearly isn't there.

I'm not trying to make a business case that we send people there to lose money. What I'd like to know is what amount of money there is and how we will encourage the private sector. Or how will we provide the final kilometre, the hookup to the individuals' homes or small businesses, where the density isn't there? What exactly are we doing to get the ISPs to offer that service?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I appreciate your comments on that. Obviously this is an area where I think it behoves us to review what has been done to date, what has worked, what hasn't worked, and what could be done differently and better in the future.

I don't think those decisions have been made in the weeks since the budget was passed, but certainly if the honourable member or any members of the committee have ideas on how to get that last mile done correctly, how to help service rural and remote areas of our country, I welcome them. I believe that 18% of our country does not have regular access to broadband to date, and it's the tough 18%, as we know. Sometimes there are topographical challenges. There certainly are in terms of how widespread it is over a large surface area, and a lot of our folks live in those areas. It's not an easy task. Certainly if members of this committee have some experiences or some ideas that would be helpful, I welcome that.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

What you're saying is that there is no set plan, but that you are open to suggestions.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

We're open to suggestions, and we obviously have some experience—for instance, in northern Ontario, again as the honourable member knows. We have a program in place, but I don't think we're wedded to doing it exactly the same way, if there are better ways to deal with it or quicker ways to do it that will be more effective. I'm certainly open to suggestions.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you, Minister Clement.

Thank you, Mr. Rota.

Monsieur Vincent.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you, Minister, for coming to testify before the committee today. I have a lot of questions to ask you.

In May 2008, the Minister of Industry refused to allow the $1.3 billion sale of MDA to the American firm ATK because he was not satisfied that acquisition of the information systems division of MDA proposed by ATK would likely be of net benefit to Canada. He added that “where a significant transaction does not demonstrate net benefit to Canada, it cannot be approved”, and accordingly Canada rejected the sale.

With the current stock market crash, shares are dropping rapidly. Does the Minister acknowledge that raising the automatic threshold for review by the Department of Industry to $1 billion amounts to abandoning and running away from his responsibilities for one of our leading industries, aeronautics, which is active in Montreal particularly?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I will say a few words on this subject. Certainly there are regulations for reviewing foreign investments. The case you raise is provided for in the regulations, but the purpose of the changes we intend to propose is to attract more foreign investment to our market. At the same time, it is important to consider national security.

Our proposed legislation has a national security aspect to it that would help us protect Canada's national security, but we also think it's consistent with the Red Wilson panel's report that we continue to be open to foreign investment wherever it provides jobs and opportunity for Canadians.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

You haven’t answered my question, or you didn’t understand it properly. Why have you raised the automatic review threshold to $1 billion? The transaction between MDA and ATK could have gone through automatically, because at that time it was for $1.3 billion. Today, we might think that it would be for less than $1 billion. No one in government could review that sale and reject it, as was done in May 2008.

Why was the threshold raised to $1 billion? Was this so you could run away from your responsibilities and give other countries an opportunity to buy our leading industries?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

It is important to be open to both domestic and foreign investment, but the most important thing is to protect national security.

I would say to the honourable member that, based on the Red Wilson panel's report, it is important to have a limit for consideration of these Investment Canada applications. The one-billion-dollar limit was the one suggested by the panel. I think it's a reasonable one. It's a more modern calculation as well, because it take into account goodwill and other factors that were not taken into account with book value in the previous piece of legislation. I think we would be perfectly able to protect Canada's national security while at the same time advancing our interest in continuing to be a place that is open to investment.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Imagine my surprise on the question of national security. If this were really in issue, we would not be setting the threshold at $1 billion, we would be applying it to every sale. We are not talking about investments, we are talking about sales. A sale is not an investment. You buy the company and you move it here, to the United States, or somewhere else. After a sale like the one involving Rio Tinto, for example, there is nothing to guarantee that we will keep the jobs. You were asked that question this afternoon, and you were not able to answer.

I don’t see why the threshold would be set at $1 billion when for all other sales below that amount, there is no review, they do what they want and they sell what they want in Canada, and Canada has no say. Setting the threshold there limits what we can do to keep our industries in Canada.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I understand the question. I can say that the limit set for reviewing investments is not connected with the question of national security. We can review the situation in the case of any investment.

Below $1 billion, above $1 billion, it doesn't matter. We can review that on national security grounds.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Do I have any time left?

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Yes.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Just now, during your presentation, you said that we had reached a crossroads. You have often referred to our solid foundation. The way the government has handled the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors is grounds for fearing for the aeronautics industry.

What concrete measures are you going to take regarding the aeronautics industry?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

As I said in the House, there are measures in the current budget and in earlier budgets for the aeronautics industry. Over $900 million dollars have been invested in that industry. Procurement for our military will also have a major impact on that industry. I can tell you that our government supports that industry. When I was in Montreal yesterday, I announced another investment for the Canadian Space Agency, also an important player in that industry. There will also be more announcements soon.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you, Minister, thank you, Mr. Vincent.

Next we have Mr. Van Kesteren and then Mr. Masse.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for appearing before us.

As you know, my riding has the pleasure of having the Navistar plant. There has been much talk about the feasibility of building the trucks that the military has contracted out, and building that truck here in Canada. I don't know if I want to get into that. You also know that I'm taking a fact-finding mission to Chicago, to the world headquarters, next week, Monday.

I want to ask you about the area that really is your responsibility, the industrial regional benefits. Could you possibly enlighten this committee on what those IRBs would be and what it would mean for Canada?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Sure, and I appreciate all of your work in this area, too. I know how important it is to your community.

Let me just say a couple of things about industrial and regional benefits policy. It requires that if companies win a contract, they have to invest in the Canadian economy, dollar for dollar, when procuring military equipment and services. That's what the IRB policy means.

That means for Canada that we get the commitment that there will be high-quality, lasting economic activities in advanced technology sectors right here at home. Basically it's our way of ensuring that the Canadian economy benefits from all these defence procurements that run into the billions of dollars, as we all know. So, yes, the military must get the best equipment that they need, but there have to be real benefits for the Canadian economy at the same time.

In the case of Navistar, as you probably know, it was the only bidder to submit a proposal for the MilCOTS. Their proposal was evaluated by the Department of by National Defence in terms of the technical aspects, and Public Works looks at the financial side and Industry Canada looks at the IRBs, the industrial and regional benefits side. They met all those requirements, so the package they signed on to will provide economic benefits of 100% of the contracted value of $274 million. That's what Canada gets out of it.

Over time, in different parts of the country, there will be announcements by the successful bidder on what that exactly means. And then, of course, we hold them to their contractual obligations.