Debates of Dec. 10th, 2012

Question No. 1008

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

With regard to staffing at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) since 2006: (a) what job positions were externally posted, including (i) the group and level classification, (ii) the job title, (iii) the language requirement, (iv) the office location, (v) the duration of the job posting, (vi) if the position was to be located in a bilingual region, (vii) whether the position was a new or existing position; (b) what externally advertised job positions were advertised for five days or less, including (i) the job title, (ii) the job description; (c) what were the employment positions at the end of fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, including (i) the group and level classification, (ii) the job title, (iii) the office location, (iv) the language requirement, (v) the total number of employees; (d) what job positions were eliminated in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, including (i) the group and level classification, (ii) the job title, (iii) the office location; (e) what are the projected job positions to be eliminated in fiscal years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015; (f) is Kevin MacAdam still employed in the position of Director General, Operations Prince Edward Island, since his appointment was revoked by the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) on August 8, 2012, (i) is he still receiving full-time French language training education, (ii) is the ACOA paying any legal costs of Mr. MacAdam's judicial review of the PSC August 8, 2012 decision; and (g) what is the ACOA’s policy when the PSC rules it is required to revoke an appointment made and the appointee files for a judicial review of the PSC decision to revoke their appointment, including (i) the effects on revoked appointment's employment contract with the ACOA, (ii) the funding the revoked appointment's legal expenses related to any legal action taken by the appointee to have the PSC decision overturned?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1009

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

With regard to the government's Working While on Claim Pilot Project (Pilot Project 18), announced in Budget 2012 and which took effect August 5, 2012, the adjustment made to it on October 5, 2012, (Pilot Project 18 Adjustment), and the previous Working While on Claim Pilot that was in effect from December 11, 2005, to August 4, 2012, (Pilot Project 17): (a) for Pilot Project 17, during fiscal years 2008 to 2012, what are the average and median part-time weekly wages earned while receiving Employment Insurance (EI), broken down by (i) geographic area, (ii) industry, (iii) the following wage earning levels: $1-50 per week, $51-100, $101-150, $151-200, $201-250, $251-300, $300 and up, etc.; (b) what is the justification, including supporting data, for the elimination of the Allowable Earning Provision in Pilot Project 18 that allowed EI claimants to earn without claw-back the greater of 40% of their weekly employment insurance benefit or $75, which was present in Pilot Project 17; (c) did the government analyze how many people were anticipated to receive less under Pilot Project 18 than under Pilot Project 17 as a result of the elimination of the Allowable Earnings Provision in Pilot Project 18 and, if so, what is the analysis, broken down by geography and industry; (d) what is the expected cost saving to the government by removing the Allowable Earnings Provision in Pilot Project 18; (e) does removing the Allowable Earnings Provision create a new claw-back for low wage earners on EI; (f) is the removal of the Allowable Earnings Provision a disincentive to work for low weekly wage EI recipients and, if not, why not, and if so, why was the provision eliminated and what new measures will be implemented to create incentives for low income earners to work; (g) was any analysis completed on what impact removing the Allowable Earnings Provision would have on seasonal workers and, if so, what is the reason for the analysis and the details of the analysis, including internal file numbers and reference numbers associated with them; (h) what data statistics have been collected on Pilot Project 17, by fiscal year, since the start of the project in 2005, including a description of the statistic and reasons for its calculation; (i) will EI recipients lose their benefits if they refuse to accept part-time work that would result in a financial loss to the claimant as a result of having 50% of their earnings clawed back; (j) what are the expected cost savings to eliminating the Allowable Earnings Provision in Pilot Project 18 compared to Pilot Project 17; (k) what have been the budgeted and actual costs for Pilot Project 17 for fiscal years 2008 to 2012, explaining any deviations; (l) what is the expected budget for Pilot Project 18 for fiscal years 2013 to 2015, explaining any reduction in budget for Pilot Project 18 compared to Pilot Project 17; (m) what internal and external studies has the government undertaken to analyze both Pilot Project 17 and Pilot Project 18 since 2005, providing (i) their names, (ii) who undertook them, (iii) the cost, (iv) the years undertaken; (n) how many EI claimants receiving the Family Benefit worked in fiscal year 2012, and what is their (i) median weekly income, (ii) average weekly income, (iii) average hours worked per week; (o) how will Pilot Project 18 promote workforce mobility across the country; (p) what are the statistics from fiscal years 2010 to 2012 detailing how people working part-time while on claim transition to full-time work; (q) how many people are anticipated to be eligible for Pilot Project 18 Adjustment; (r) how many individuals who are eligible for the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment are anticipated to revert to Pilot Project 17 rules; (s) how will individuals who qualify for the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment be notified of their eligibility and provided the relevant information; (t) how were individuals who were eligible for Pilot Project 18 notified about their eligibility and provided the relevant information; (u) why are individuals who qualify under the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment who chose to revert to Pilot Project 17 rules required to file their bi-weekly reports manually and not electronically; (v) what is the expected number of employment insurance applications to be processed in January, 2013, based on normal historical volumes; (w) what is the anticipated volume of application files related to people who revert back to Pilot Project 17 who are eligible for the Pilot Project Adjustment; (x) is additional staffing planned to deal with the increased processing volume for January, 2013, as a result of the file requests from individuals opting to revert to Pilot Project 17 rules; and (y) are regular claimants who received at least one week of regular benefits between August 7, 2011, and August 4, 2012, ineligible for the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment if they work more than one or two days per week part-time and, if so, what is the rationale?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1014

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did the department award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient’s name, the date, the amount and the description?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1019

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1023

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

With regard to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1029

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

With regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Syria

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for over 18 months the people of Syria have been calling for democracy. They begun with peaceful protest, but were met with violence by President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Unfortunately, as is often the case, violence begat violence. More than 40,000 people have been killed, untold thousands have been injured and torture and rape are being reported throughout Syria. Even children are being tortured.

The regime is butchering innocent civilians by indiscriminately using air power to bomb them. More than 260,000 people have fled Syria and taken refuge in neighbouring countries. This flood of refugees is overwhelming the ability of these countries to meet the needs of the refugees. Right now more than 50,000 Syrians are trying to escape the conflict in Syria but are being kept at the border because they do not have proper documents.

As winter approaches, thousands of refugees have been facing deteriorating conditions. They will be facing snow and freezing temperatures when living in tents.

In recent days there have widespread reports that the al-Assad regime is contemplating the use of chemical weapons. The international community has been unanimous in its condemnations, with several countries indicating that the regime's use of chemical weapons will result in severe consequences. These reports will drive more Syrians to flee to safety.

This will cause more overcrowding in the refugee camps, place a large burden on the countries that are offering refuge and accelerate the deteriorating conditions in which the refugees find themselves.

Syrian Canadians want to hear from all of us. This is why I am asking for an emergency debate in order for all of us in the House to voice our opinions and to find out what the government will do with respect to this important issue.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for raising this issue and I understand his concerns regarding the subject matter.

I do note that the seventh report of the foreign affairs committee, as we just heard, is due back for the rest of debate this week. Therefore, in light of that, I will deny the request for an emergency debate but encourage the member to participate in the remainder of the debate on the concurrence report.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion--Investment Canada Act

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the House today regarding Canada's foreign investment review regime. I also note that I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex this afternoon.

On Friday, December 7, the Prime Minister made an important announcement about how the process will change with respect to proposed transactions by state-owned enterprises. The changes reflect concerns raised by an evolving investment environment where state-owned enterprises have increased in size, activity and their interest in Canada's natural resources.

I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry because this change shows that the government continues to stand up for Canadians.

The announcement of last Friday certainly was not a bolt out of the blue. This government first signalled its concern about the role of state-owned enterprises in 2006 as part of its Advantage Canada plan. Furthermore, it reflects the practice of the government to ensure that the foreign investment review regime evolves along with the changing nature of foreign investment.

It is worth recalling that the economic history of Canada shows that the investment regime has evolved as different governments have responded to shifts in global economic power that have altered the pattern of foreign direct investment.

In the 1970s, it was the economic power of the United States and Europe that led to calls for a regime to review acquisitions of Canadian business. This eventually led to Parliament's approval of the Foreign Investment Review Act, or FIRA, and the creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency in 1975.

FIRA's stated purpose was to ensure that control of Canadian businesses or the establishment of new businesses under non-Canadians would only be permitted were they likely to be of significant benefit to Canada. The agency was tasked with reviewing proposed transactions to ensure that they met that objective.

FIRA specified factors that were to be taken into account when reviewing a proposed transaction. Briefly, these included the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians; productivity, efficiency, technological development, product innovation and variety; competition in Canada; and compatibility with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, including the policies of the provinces likely to be affected.

FIRA provided the government significant powers, including permitting the responsible minister to investigate companies, to enter premises and search for evidence, and to require the investor to be examined under oath. Critics said that the FIRA process was overly rigid and too secretive. For example, the agency did not have to report its grounds for decision-making in particular cases.

The threshold for review under FIRA was also very low. Any business with assets of more than $300,000 and revenue of more than $3 million was subject to the act. The review process was long and cumbersome. On average, it took six months, and often in excess of a year. It often increased transaction costs.

In 1985, Parliament approved the replacement of FIRA with the Investment Canada Act. Furthermore, the Foreign Investment Review Agency was replaced with a new agency, Investment Canada.

The new mandate under the ICA was to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributed to economic growth and employment opportunities, and to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians to ensure such benefits to Canada.

As I alluded to earlier, the criteria for foreign investment under the ICA were substantially similar to those under FIRA, with the addition of a factor focused on Canada's ability to compete in world markets. This addition was key, because it recognized the changing economic environment where global competitiveness was going to matter to countries and to Canada's economic well-being.

The ICA era differed immediately from the FIRA era because of its different purposes. The ICA ensured that Canada was open for business with more realistic thresholds for review and shorter times for the completion of reviews.

The impact of the changes under the ICA cannot be overstated. Foreign investment rebounded significantly. Canada's share of inward foreign direct investment stock, that is the Canadian assets owned by non-Canadians, has risen steadily since the ICA. Our proportion of inward foreign direct investment stock to our gross domestic product has also increased significantly.

Canada continues to attract more than its share of global foreign investment, and that is a good thing for Canadians. Foreign investment promotes growth, employment and innovation here at home, as well as access to new markets and global supply chains abroad. Foreign investment brings some of the most productive and successful firms in the world to Canada and results in some of the highest paying jobs for Canadians.

Foreign direct investment, both into Canada and by Canadian firms abroad, is a win-win for our economy. With this in mind, Canada needs to make it clear that we are open for business and welcome foreign investment. Let me repeat: Canada is open for business and welcomes foreign investment. Our government is committed to sending the message to investors around the world that Canada is a safe and stable place to invest and do business. However, we also need to recognize that as the world changes and investment trends evolve, we need to evolve too.

The Prime Minister's announcement last Friday evening regarding the review of proposed investment by foreign state-owned enterprises is only the latest example of this government standing up for Canadians. This government acted previously to protect Canadian interests when it came to foreign investment. In fact, we have been the most active government since the introduction in 1985 of the Investment Canada to ensure that the foreign investment that comes to Canada actually benefits hard-working Canadians.

My hon. colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex will now highlight some of the recent actions our government has taken to keep the Investment Canada Act framework relevant to emerging economic reality.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his speech. I would like to ask a question. Surveys show that nearly 70% of Canadians have serious concerns about the takeover of Nexen by CNOOC.

Why are the Conservatives still refusing to consult with Canadians in order to reassure them?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that Canadians have responded favourably in the past several days and that the markets today have more than favourably supported this decision. Our Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry were very clear on Friday evening that we must evolve. Business changes and we must evolve in line with global demands. Clearly, the decision that was made met those tests and it is fair to say that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have thoroughly supported this decision given to us on Friday evening.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks by the member for Don Valley West. I think he is a very serious member of the House. However, I do have a concern. He said a couple of times that we are open for business and that we welcome foreign investment. That is fine on the surface, but on the other side of that, is Canada up for sale?

I watched the Prime Minister's remarks on Friday night, and they did not reassure me a whole lot. They reassured shareholders. Shareholders are looking for a quick gain. They are not looking at the long-term future. They are going to take their profit and then they may run.

We have corporations in Canada sitting on over $500 billion in cash, not investing it in this country, and yet we are trying to draw foreign investment in. I am not against foreign investment.

What I need to know from the member for Don Valley West, who seems to have a fair bit of detail on this announcement, is whether we have reciprocity with China in terms of this agreement. That is a key point. Did we get reciprocity with China in terms of our investing in their country under the same terms and conditions as CNOOC is allowed to invest in the oil sands?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this decision took time and considerable serious consideration by our Minister of Industry and by the Prime Minister.

The decision that was announced Friday night clearly brought a balanced decision to an issue that has been contentious for several months. In his remarks, the Prime Minister clearly addressed the fact that the old era was ending and the new era, with new standards, was beginning. Clearly the government is adapting to growing global interest in our markets.

I will just mention one fact that I think is relevant. As of the end of 2011, Canadian firms outside Canada reached $685 billion in foreign investment, and foreign investment into Canada reached $608 billion. Clearly for our country, our nation, to thrive and to meet the government's objectives of job creation, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians, we have to be competitive in that market. The standards that were issued Friday evening meet that demand.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Don Valley West for detailing the historical basics, which are vital to understanding the important actions taken in terms of the Investment Canada Act the other evening.

The changes the government introduced have not just been tinkering, as some might suggest. We have taken a targeted approach and that is, quite honestly, the responsible way for us to remain effective in the face of evolving foreign investment trends, not only in this country but in others around the world. We know that Canada is a bit of a target because of its strong economic position over the last number of years that got us through the economic downturn.

In 2007, our government introduced guidelines on investments by state-owned enterprises. In 2009, we introduced national security provisions into the ICA, as well as amendments to increase the threshold for net benefit reviews and to remove sector-specific restrictions on investments. In the most recent federal budget, we introduced targeted measures intended to improve transparency and enhance enforcement.

In 2006, we recognized that investments by foreign state-owned enterprises represented a unique challenge to Canada as these investment opportunities seem to be growing, as I mentioned earlier. There is a concern that state-owned enterprises may not be commercially oriented, which could affect their operations in Canada. Guidelines on state-owned enterprises first enunciated in 2007 place significant focus on whether the Canadian businesses being acquired could operate with commercial orientation. Since that time, Canada has seen a significant increase in investment by state-owned enterprises.

As we see Canadian businesses and opportunities growing, state-owned enterprises are taking a large interest and that interest is growing. Hence, the need for the guidelines that were brought forward the other night. The Prime Minister did that on Friday evening. The revised guidelines will be applied to proposed transactions.

I will highlight the guidelines that have been mentioned time and again, and in fact, today in the House of Commons during question period. The Minister of Industry will consider among other factors: the degree of control or influence a state-owned enterprise would likely exert on the Canadian business that is being acquired; the degree of control or influence that a state-owned enterprise would likely exert on the industry in which the Canadian business operates; and the extent to which the foreign government in question is likely to exercise control or influence over the state-owned enterprise acquiring the Canadian business.

The national security provisions have also been raised a number of times. In 2008, the Competition Policy Review Panel, led by Mr. Wilson, in its final report called “Compete to Win”, recommended that the government introduce national security provisions in the ICA. It is amazing, quite honestly, that it was not until 2008 that Canada had a consideration for national security provisions within its ICA. In 2009, that recognition was given.

Under the national security review provisions, the Minister of Industry, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, is required to review all transactions, regardless of value, for national security concerns. In cases of concern, if it does show up at varying degrees of severity, a more in-depth review is undertaken and the minister may present the matter to cabinet for consideration. Cabinet is given broad powers to protect Canada's national security interests under the act, which are similar to protections in peer countries.

As we all know, the Prime Minister announced plans to permit the extension of national security reviews in the exceptional cases where it is necessary to do so. This will ensure that the government has the time it needs to thoroughly examine the complex cases that come before it. There is no more solemn duty of the government than protecting Canada's national security. In adding a national security review process, this government brought Canada's investment review regime into line with the practices of countries around the world.

We have heard a lot in the discussions in the House about net benefit review and those thresholds. The government also accepted another recommendation of the Competition Policy Review Panel. The government has taken steps to increase the net benefit review threshold from the existing $330 million to $1 billion. The purpose here is both to limit the role of the government in the private sector and to permit a focus on only the most significant transactions.

Additionally, the government accepted the panel's recommendation to shift the basis for calculating the review threshold from asset value to enterprise value. The government followed this recommendation in recognition of the fact that the business world has changed. Intellectual property, such as patents and trademarks, are of growing importance to business. Yet intellectual property is undervalued when considered on the basis of asset value. Enterprise value does a better job of more accurately capturing the value of a going concern business, including its intellectual property.

Members will recall that the Prime Minister announced that the increase in the net benefit review threshold will go forward for private businesses. However, and this is important, the higher threshold will not apply to transactions proposed by state-owned enterprises. Investments by state-owned enterprises will still be subject to a net benefit review at the lower threshold of $330 million. This will ensure these transactions are closely monitored.

When we look at transparency and enforcement, the Investment Canada Act contains strong confidentiality protections, which are necessary to ensure that investors willingly provide the sort of information that is required to conduct net benefit reviews. Under the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the ICA was amended. These are changes that will address the concerns of the opposition. The changes permit the disclosure of more information about the review process while still preserving commercial confidences. Specifically, the minister may disclose the fact he has sent preliminary notice to an investor that he is not satisfied that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. He may also explain his reasons for sending the notice, so long as it would not prejudice the Canadian business or the investor. At the same time, the ICA was amended to assist the government in obtaining investor compliance with undertakings.

In conclusion, our government has demonstrated over and over again that it needs to act and has acted to ensure that Canada's investment regime protects Canada's interests and is relevant to the global economic reality, which is a moving target. The Prime Minister's announcement of changes to the foreign investment review framework on Friday night were welcomed, not only by our caucus but by people around the world.