Bill C-396 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Industry Act (financial assistance)

This enactment amends the Department of Industry Act in order to require the Minister of Industry to publish certain information concerning the financial assistance provided either under section 14 of the Act or by any economic development or opportunities agency for which the Minister is responsible.

Department of Industry Act

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved that Bill C-396, An Act to amend the Department of Industry Act (financial assistance), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate that we are forced to introduce a bill to ensure greater transparency. It must be said that the Government of Canada provides financial assistance to many businesses. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that when the government says that its financial assistance is repayable, Canadian taxpayers are actually informed that they have been repaid. We do not have that information and that is the purpose of the bill. It is a very simple bill.

I stated that it is unfortunate that we have to introduce a bill because I want to go back to 2006 when I was the industry minister. The information was available. When the industry minister provided repayable assistance, taxpayers could go to the department's website and find out which companies had received financial assistance, how much they received, and the repayment terms.

We have been asking the government for a lot more transparency for many months now. Let us not forget the $275-million repayable loan that the government gave Bombardier a few months ago. I asked the government what the terms and conditions of that loan were, and I was told that they were secret. That is unfortunate because taxpayers will not know whether that money has been repaid. What is more, although the government gave that money to a very reputable company, jobs still left Montreal. Meanwhile, members will recall that shareholders received very generous bonuses, thanks to the $200-odd million the government gave Bombardier.

That said, these agreements are not secret. They should be made public because taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going. That is why we had to introduce a bill today to tell the government that the official opposition, with the support of the NDP, I hope, wants to know what happens with any future grants and whether the amounts are actually repaid.

I am going to give a few figures because the industry minister is really responsible for the contributions and funding given to companies. This is not a new problem. I see here that the Government of Canada gave $57 million to Bell Helicopter. When we look at the “repayment” column on the department's website, it says that the information is confidential. No information is provided. The problem is that the loan was granted int November 2003 and we do not know what is happening with it. We found out about the loan when it was made public a few years later in 2006-07, as I said, but we do not know whether it has been repaid.

I am looking at another file, that of CMC Electronic Inc. In 1997, the government granted CMC $23 million. Was that money ever paid back? No. I can go on because the list is long. I will name only a few. IBM Canada, a company that does very well, received $33 million from the Minister of Industry. Was that money paid back? No, no one knows, because that is confidential. When I look at all this and add up all the companies that did not repay the money they received, I see that more than 200 companies received repayable loans and grants that just slipped through the cracks. No one has any idea what happened to the money that was given to nearly half of those 200 companies. No one knows if, in fact, the money was given as a grant or not. Unpaid repayable loans become subsidies. There is no information for 45% of these companies.

Even more alarming is that this money given to the corporations represents more than $700 million in unpaid loans. Is this $700 million in subsidies to big business or not? No one knows because no one has any idea about the repayment status of these “subsidies”.

Since this is taxpayer money there is nothing confidential about it and everything should be made public. Some civil organizations are asking for this information. They have taken the matter to court to find out what happened with these grants or so-called repayable loans.

The bill is very simple. It says that when the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development gives a business a grant or a non-repayable loan, taxpayers and Canadians should be able to find out if the money is repaid or not. That is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why I am happy my NDP colleagues support this. I very rarely agree with socialists, but they are being sensible here. Like me, they can see that, in this case, the government is using its power to say things are secret when they are not secret.

I hope to have the support of my Liberal colleagues as well. During and after the election campaign, they talked a lot about transparency, open government, and accessible government. If that is really what my Liberal colleagues want to achieve, this is their opportunity to walk the talk. They can choose to take action and support this bill to signal that transparency is important in Canadian society and tell Canadians that upwards of $700 million will be repaid.

It is unfair that so many small businesses, including some in Beauce, do not have the luxury of getting subsidies—excuse me, repayable loans that, between you and me, turn into subsidies when they are not repaid. Businesses in Beauce work hard, pay their taxes, and obey the law, but they do not have this luxury and cannot access any of that money. The government should treat everyone fairly and make sure the money is repaid.

I have a suggestion for my Liberal friends. When the $700 million is repaid, if indeed those were repayable loans, they can use the money to lower the tax rate for all businesses in Canada and adopt a policy that is actually fair and will create wealth.

The bill is on the table, and I am eager to hear from my Liberal colleagues. I think they will see the light and support it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised the question of Bombardier. I am firm believer in making investments in Canadian businesses to ensure we create Canadian jobs to build a strong Canadian economy. However, on the question of Bombardier, it lost $900 million, got $1 billion from the taxpayers, and then because its CEOs seemed to have felt they did such a good job, they paid themselves some $30 million in bonuses.

I know my friend is a hard-core fundamentalist capitalist, but would he not agree that the bonuses these CEOs were paid was taxpayer money and that, as taxpayers, we should have some right to at least claw that back or to ensure, if the company gets this kind of money, that we get the full benefit, including accountability and transparency?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the NDP is saying hits close to home for me, because I am very much of the same mind. Their comments align with the Conservative principles of freedom and responsibility. I am thrilled that my colleague is saying yes to the Conservative principles of freedom and responsibility. He is absolutely right about Bombardier and about other companies that receive these loans. When Bombardier accepted the loans, its executives did indeed give themselves huge bonuses. That was taxpayer money. This is where our views coincide with those of the NDP members, because taxpayer money is important. We need to get the details of this secret agreement, but as my colleague said, the most important thing is to get taxpayers their money back.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the months go by, I find the Conservatives and the NDP have a lot more in common. I do not know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Many would suggest it is an unholy alliance.

I acknowledge that political entities of all stripes across the country, at the provincial level and at the national level, have recognized that at times there is a need for government to get involved. We have seen many success stories, jobs that would never have survived if government had not been involved. Even the introducer of the bill might be a minority within his own caucus.

Does he believe that at times government needs to get involved to ensure the longevity of some of these very important industries? I could cite examples specifically in my province of Manitoba. It seems to cross party lines, at least at the provincial level and I would like at the national level as well.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government is involved, we must have transparency. Everyone must know what is happening. That is the challenge we have right now with the government. The government is involved with more than $700 million and we do not know what happens to the money when it goes to corporations. However, it is supposed to be reimbursed but it has not. The government is part of the economy. I do not question that today. If we look at the bill, I am questioning what is happening with taxpayer money.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the member for Beauce's private member's bill goes to the heart of the parliamentary system. In the 13th century, the capitalist bourgeoisie went to the king to demand a place in an assembly, which became the legislative assembly. Their goal was first and foremost to find out what the king was doing with the money, the bourgeoisie's money, the suppliers' money and the people's money, which had been collected by the bourgeoisie or by agents acting for the king.

It is clear that the Liberals hate reporting to Parliament, because they are trying to hide a $7-billion slush fund in their new 2018-19 budget. I would therefore like the member to tell us a bit about his vision and about how his bill goes to the heart of the parliamentary system and accountability as practised by the capitalist bourgeoisie in the 13th century.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

We have some very learned members in the Conservative Party who know their history, like my colleague. I am proud to be here, in the House, with all of my colleagues. It is a privilege to represent the people, and we are part of a very small club. However, we must do what is needed to honour the Canadian Constitution and constitutional standards. We are here to hold the government to account on what it is doing with taxpayer money. We are having to go so far as to introduce a bill to get answers on transparency. This goes against the parliamentary principle, and I hope that my Liberal colleagues will realize this. I thank my colleague for raising one more point in favour of this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised this afternoon at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Status of Women; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Canada Revenue Agency.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Thornhill.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge a claim made by my hon. colleague. He asserted that in the past, and repeated the claim, when he was industry minister, that he made all agreements public as well as the balance that remained to be paid for each loan and each company. That simply is not true.

I would like to refresh his memory. The Department of Industry, now Innovation, Science and Economic Development, or ISED, has never published the terms and conditions of individual funding agreements or the agreements themselves.

When the member for Beauce was minister of industry, from February 2006 to August 2007, ISED followed the Government of Canada's proactive disclosure policy for grants and contributions. Since then, nothing has changed other than our government has dramatically increased the amount of information that is currently being disclosed, something I will speak about shortly. Since 2015, there has been more openness and more transparency, not less.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am honoured to rise in the House to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and to participate in debate on Bill C-396, an act to amend the Department of Industry Act with respect to loans that are given out, and to address the issue of transparency and accountability with respect to loans.

What I have learned in my many years of representing northern Ontario is that the government has an important role to play in working as a partner and ensuring that we can build a strong economic base across this country. Part of the role the government plays as a partner is making sure that if loans are being made, they are of net benefit to our regions and our country.

The issue that has been brought forward by my colleague about more transparency with respect to these loans is certainly something we should be looking at, because after a number of recent scandals, Canadians have asked themselves how these decisions could have been made.

For example, Export Development Canada loaned $41 million to the notorious Gupta brothers to buy a jet, who then absconded with the jet and defaulted on the payments. People back home ask themselves how it could possibly be in the interests of Canada and the hard-working taxpayers of our country to loan $41 million to a couple of brothers who were involved in all kinds of accusations of corruption in another continent to buy themselves the ultimate lifestyle trinket, that being a private jet. They would also wonder why Canadians would be surprised that they absconded with the jet.

That kind of transparency is worth having.

I would like to challenge my Conservative colleague. I do not think we have ever agreed on anything, other than the fact that this issue of transparency is important. However, under the previous Conservative government, when it came to the issue of net benefit to the Canadian people in deals with industry, it was very secretive. We saw that with the takeover of American Steel and Stelco. We saw it with the supposed net benefit to Canada when two of the greatest mining companies in the world, Falconbridge and Inco, were allowed to be taken over by the corporate bandits Xstrata and Vale. We were told that this was to be to be of net benefit to Canadians, yet when we asked what the terms of the agreements were that they had to live by, we were told it was a secret.

How is it possible that we can sell off major Canadian industries with a supposed investment agreement and then, when we ask if the terms of the agreement are being lived up to, we are told it is a secret? That is not in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer.

What my hon. colleague is putting forward with respect to the obligation for industry is vital at this time, because we see a government that talks about moving forward with “clusters”. That is its big vision: to find a supercluster or a megacluster. I do not know what it will call it in the next budget—the “super-duper oodle cluster”?

The idea that it can find three or four places in the country and turn an economy around is a ridiculous notion, because an economy is like a strong ecosystem, in that there have to be values at every level that are actually sustainable. Contrary to the Liberals' vision of the supercluster, I think one of the important roles of government investment is in regional economic development, to make sure that we have solid local economies across this country. That is done by being a partner, and traditionally we have done it through the various economic development agencies.

There have been a lot of allegations over the years of pork-barrel politics and problems with that. This is why accountability and transparency are important. It is extremely important in my region of northern Ontario, which is a resource-based economy. The principle of resource-based economies, where there are non-renewable resources, is that the revenues should benefit the region. In the case of Alberta, the revenues go back to Alberta. In the case of Newfoundland, they go back to Newfoundland. However, in the case of Ontario, the entire resource-based region sends its money to Queen's Park in southern Ontario, and then we have to go down like beggars, cap in hand, and beg for what they consider to be gifts, loans, and charity to us poor northern communities when we do not have the benefit of our resources.

One of the agreements that was to offset this huge disparity in the economic system which exists in Ontario with a very powerful urban core and very isolated communities was to create a regional economic development agency, and that was FedNor. FedNor's job was to reinvest money in the regions working with local partners. However, what we have seen over the last number of years is that FedNor has been atrophied. It has been cut. We have lost 30% of the staff at FedNor. FedNor had a $1.76-million annual budget and it is down to about half that now.

In the latest budget, the government did not even mention FedNor. The Liberals talk about maybe moving it all into the minister's office. This is another concern because the minister, who is from Mississauga, is now taking the role of the regional development voice for every part of the country. That does not make sense, because regions of the country are dramatically different. I cannot believe that the minister from Mississauga understands the issues that people face in La Sarre and Abitibi, or understands the differences in having a local economy when there are communities that are sometimes five and six hours away from each other. That is the role of FedNor. FedNor gets this.

When the federal Liberals came into government in 2015, they shut all the broadband projects in northern Ontario that were under FedNor because they had a super-duper cluster plan, which took another two years to roll out. We lost two years of broadband development in a region that is isolated and where it is badly needed. The federal Liberals then decided they were going to have a consultation process. Another thing is that the Liberals love to talk. They had a national consultation process on rural broadband, and they found that northern Ontario had serious shortfalls in broadband. Why is this important? How do they attract business and how do they get start-up businesses if they do not have broadband?

The consultation process went on for two years and they consulted everybody. They consulted municipalities. They consulted NGOs. They consulted businesses. I am surprised they did not go door to door with surveys. They consulted everybody except the economic agency of the region, which is there for the federal government. Not only that, what is more surprising is that they consulted with the provincial economic development agency, but they ignored FedNor.

It tells me that this is the view of a government that does not understand the value of our regions and the importance of the distinct differences between rural, between northern, and between resource-based economies. They have to understand that if they are going to make economic transformations. The Liberals are now talking about their superclusters and their mega-clusters. They are now saying that they want to do regional development like that. That is not how it works. When we have communities that are spread out over such a vast region, they have to understand that they have to do it at the grassroots. They have to involve the people who know about it. We have some amazing people who do this work.

This year at the Prospectors & Developers Association convention, FedNor's booth was probably the largest single booth there—the European Union booth looked like penny ante stuff compared to FedNor—because the economic potential of the mining sector rebirth in northern Ontario is gathering international investors. FedNor is there, but FedNor's budget is so underfunded that 70% of its funds are spent before the year begins.

Imagine what we could do if we had a strong mandate for regional development, if we had the government investing in regional development, if it actually understood the importance of sectors like the mineral sector in the north and the potential for creating spinoff industries. That is how to build a sustainable economy for the long term.

We get back to the issue of transparency. The government is going to be giving out massive loans to companies like Bombardier. I have nothing against Bombardier, but holy smokes, it lost $900 million, borrowed $1 billion from the taxpayer, and of the $100 million, took a $30-million cut for its CEOs. That to me is not credible. We should claw back every dime from those CEO bonuses because it is taxpayer money. Bombardier can play such an important role. In Thunder Bay, Bombardier has the plant for the subways and the streetcars for most of Canada. That is important work, and yet Bombardier ships 80% of the jobs to Mexico. I have a problem giving a company $1 billion if it is going to ship 80% of the work to Mexico.

My belief is if a company gets money from the Canadian taxpayer, it invests in Canada. If it gets bonuses through the Canadian taxpayer, they go back to the Canadian taxpayer.

Our deal has to be that if a company is getting Canadian money, then it is not buying jets for corrupt businessmen in South Africa, or shipping the money to Mexico. It is going to create a sustainable, profitable economy for our region. That is why we need issues of accountability and transparency.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I want to bring to the attention of the House that just prior to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, the hon. member for Markham—Thornhill had made a brief intervention. That was because of a misunderstanding at the time. I thought we were on resuming debate, and we got off on the wrong foot. The member for Markham—Thornhill was in fact posing a question, thinking we were still on questions and comments.

These things do happen from time to time. I erred in not recognizing that she was framing her comments as a question and not as part of her speech. Therefore, we will go back to the member for Markham—Thornhill on resuming debate.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to being open and transparent about how taxpayer dollars are spent so that Canadians are better able to hold Parliament and the government accountable. In fact, we have recently introduced proactive disclosure requirements for grants and contributions that enhance transparency and oversight of public resources. These requirements set a higher bar for openness and transparency with regard to financial support provided by the government. These guidelines exceed many of the requirements laid out in this bill.

In June 2016, as part of the open government action plan, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat committed to increasing the transparency and usefulness of grants and contributions data. The initiative was spearheaded by a TBS-led committee of 37 participating departments, agencies, and crown corporations, known as the Committee on the Reporting of Grants and Contributions Awards. This was part of the first major renewal of the proactive disclosure requirements for grants and contributions since the policy first came into effect in 2006. As a result, starting on April 1, 2018, federal departments, agencies, and crown corporations have been following the new guidelines on the reporting of grants and contributions awards, which consist of three major themes.

First, the government will now have to disclose all grants and contributions, not just those over $25,000, as required previously. In fact, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the department targeted by this bill, has been following this practice for its grants and contributions since last January.

Second, all government grants and contributions information will be posted on the open.canada.ca platform rather than on each federal organization's website. This will give Canadians a simple, one-stop repository that will better enable them to oversee how their government is using public resources.

Third, the amount of information to be disclosed has been dramatically increased. Previously, each grant or contribution disclosure contained basic identifying information, including the value of the award, the name and location of the recipient, and limited information on the purpose of the funding. Now the government will publish a much more robust amount of information for each disclosure. This includes a more comprehensive section on the purpose of the award, the expected outcomes, and information on the recipient.

In addition, if passed, these reporting requirements would be strengthened and modernized through Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is currently being reviewed by the Senate. Bill C-58 would create a legislated requirement for the proactive publication of grants and contributions aligned with the new guidelines I just explained.

In seeking to legislate these requirements, rather than enacting them through policy, the government is looking to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions to promote an open and democratic society and enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions.

As I have just shown, the current proactive disclosure requirements and proposed legislative changes through Bill C-58 would provide Canadians with robust oversight of public resources. Importantly, this would be done, unlike with the proposed bill, without compromising the competitive position of individual firms.

Bill C-396 would require private businesses and organizations to release sensitive commercial information, potentially compromising their competitiveness and market position. This bill would effectively obligate the government to publish the commercially sensitive and confidential information of private Canadian businesses, information that could potentially be used by a competitor, domestic or foreign, to undermine the competitive position of Canadian companies in the global innovation economy. This would be of particular concern to smaller, privately owned businesses that are not already required to publicly report things like revenues and expenditures in the same way publicly traded companies are.

The Government of Canada supports firms looking to scale up, expand into new markets, and develop technologies that support a modern, innovation economy.

The government's support for innovators and entrepreneurs is essential to achieving the goals set out in the innovation and skills plan to build an economy that works for everyone, an economy where Canadians have access to high-quality jobs and where Canadian businesses are well placed to compete in a rapidly evolving and competitive global marketplace.

Despite what the member opposite who has tabled this bill claims about this kind of support, the government is not in the business of corporate welfare. Rather, the government's support for innovative projects and collaborations helps Canadian firms enhance research and development activities, which benefits Canadians and Canada by generating investment, developing new technologies, and enhancing Canadian innovation capacity and expertise.

From the development of new clean technologies to the scaling up of small businesses, the government supports entrepreneurs and researchers working in various sectors of the economy who demonstrate the potential to drive forward Canada's innovation economy. The government will continue to support cutting-edge research that drives innovation and the development of new products and services for global consumers.

This is just one of the many ways the Government of Canada is working toward creating a competitive business environment that will benefit all Canadians and also attract investment. We have made significant strides in advancing this ambitious plan to strengthen the middle class, create jobs, and ensure a clean and inclusive future for all Canadians.

Just recently, we successfully announced the selection of five innovation superclusters. Small and medium-sized enterprises, large companies, academic institutions, and not-for-profit organizations will work together to advance Canada's technological capabilities.

We are also simplifying the way we support innovators with the creation of Innovation Canada to serve as a single point of contact for entrepreneurs looking to grow their businesses and as a gateway to government programs and services. The government provides a broad level of support to businesses looking to scale up, expand into new markets, and develop technologies to grow an innovation economy.

Governments should not be compromising sensitive commercial information that would undermine the competitiveness of those firms or Canada's attractiveness as a place to invest. The new, proactive disclosure requirements the government has put in place already strengthen the oversight of the use of public resources without creating a disincentive for businesses to get the help they need to benefit Canadians.

Bill C-396 would impede the government's efforts to better support innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. Strong collaboration between ISED and the business community is essential to successfully drive forth the innovation and skills plan, create jobs, and improve the standard of living for all Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the private member's bill introduced by the member for Beauce.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou so aptly said, Bill C-396 goes to the very heart of the principles underlying parliaments like ours, which exist throughout the world wherever there were British colonies. We are here to ensure that the House of Commons, which represents Canadians, approves the government's spending. Our country is based on a parliamentary system.

In my opinion, corporate subsidies and transparency in government spending are not mutually exclusive. The two should go hand in hand. Nevertheless, if I had to choose between Canadians' right to know how the government is spending their money and privileged corporations' right to keep secrets, I would side with Canadians. That is what the bill introduced by the member for Beauce seeks to do by proposing that the Department of Industry Act be amended with regard to financial assistance.

I do not believe we should privilege companies in any way. We should privilege the rights of Canadian citizens to know how their government spends money.

I am reminded of the history of Canada. In the 1840s, the main question when Confederation was first debated was about responsible government. For Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, Robert Baldwin, and other great fathers of Confederation, the question was centred on elected parliaments or appointed governors.

Who decides the power of the purse? Who decides those decisions? Those are the same debates that the United Kingdom's parliament had when there was a difference of opinion between what the crown wanted to spend and what the commons wanted to spend. Those same debates influenced debates in the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s in Canada, and eventually led to Confederation. The act of Confederation was passed by the mother parliament in the United Kingdom, and we got responsible government in Canada. Since then, there has been a tension between what the government wants to do and what the commons wants to do.

The previous member said “we” referring to the government. Well, in fact, only the members of the front bench are members of the government. Our job as backbenchers, regardless of where we sit, is to hold the government accountable for its spending, because it does so both in our name and in the name of the citizens of Canada, who we represent.

There is a non-transparent reality about the Canadian corporate welfare. We, as politicians, offer a lot of justifications, and this is a problem all governments face, whether provincial or federal. We offer justifications, such as we are investing in the future or we are investing in new technology. These are all things that corporations, businesses, can do on their own. If they are asking the taxpayer to take some of the risk with them, and I sometimes hear “de-risking”, which is the finance minister's favourite term, the taxpayer is being forced to take on some of that risk.

I want to talk about some of the risk that the taxpayer has taken on in the past. A Technology Partnerships Canada repayment status report was put out November 1, 2017. It is the latest one I could find. There are corporations pre-2006 that took money from the taxpayer, and not all of them bad. Some of the investment decisions made by previous governments panned out, but we do not always know what they were. A clause reads, “ Indicates that the company has not provided ITO with an authorization to disclose repayment information”.

Will I, on behalf of the taxpayers in my riding, say that I do not care if the company has not filled out a little document saying it is okay with releasing the contents of that information? I want to know the contents of that loan or whether it was a gift. It has to be one of the two.

For example, Vector Aerospace Helicopter Services Inc. was given $3,509,249 in September 2005. It has paid back around $1.9 million, which may be not a bad amount but I cannot tell. However, a lot of these are simply blanked out, information is not available, so there is no way for us, as parliamentarians, to return to the House and say that the decision the government made was a good or bad one.

When there is a lack of information, it privileges ministers of the crown. The previous speaker and other members have said that there is all this great transparency, all these great things going on, and the information will be released eventually. If that is true, and I have serious doubts that it is true, why not vote for the bill? It will just make it legislation. It will not be a policy decision of the government of the day. We could have it as a statutory requirement. What could be better? It would be a law that we could then have civil servants live up to. If they come to a parliamentary committee, their performance could be judged on how they adhered to the law. If we are going to have more transparency, then why not?

I think the reason many members of the governing caucus are defending the vote against this private member's bill is that they know there is a lack of transparency. We need to look no further than the $7-billion slush fund that is being set up, and the great attempt to try and bring more transparency to the House, the attempt to change the way the estimates work. For eight years this will be done and the government will create a fund and the Treasury Board Secretariat will decide where the money goes, not parliamentarians, but Treasury Board and civil servants.

To bring it back to the examples I gave before about potentially good investments, I want to bring up Sandvine Incorporated where $9.5 million of taxpayer money was given to it in May 2013 and the taxpayer made back almost $14 million. There are good examples like this where we could wonder what was different about this agreement. What worked out in this agreement that did not work out in, say, Sanofi Pasteur's $48.5 million? Was it a loan? We cannot tell. We actually do not know how much of the money was returned to the taxpayer. Was it a good investment or was it not?

On the claims that corporate welfare works, that subsidies to corporations work, Mark Milke wrote in The Globe and Mail that it is “based on poor data, unsound social-science methods, and faulty economic reasoning....” Without information being released consistently, there is actually no way for parliamentarians and the Government of Canada to say yes or no. There is no way for them to look at the good cases and the litany of bad cases where government money, taxpayer money given by hard-working Canadians, is wasted to sustain companies in some cases that have no product or service that the free market wants to purchase. Why are they being sustained longer?

I could complain about Bombardier, but I am member from Calgary, Alberta, so let me complain about corporate welfare which I think goes to some oil and gas companies. This is according to Natural Resources Canada. It is from table 1b of “Corporate Welfare Cash: 21st Century Justifications and Billion-Dollar Bills to Come”, written by Mark Milke. For Suncor Energy products, there is a $2.17-million repayable contribution, but there is no data showing how much of it was actually repaid to the taxpayer. There is reference to Shell Canada, IGPC Ethanol Inc., and Greenfield Johnstown Limited.

It is right for the taxpayer to know the terms and conditions of the loan and how much of it has been repaid. Even if the purpose is good, even if there might be a legitimate public policy purpose that is outside profitability and sustainability, maybe taxpayer dollars should go to it. Let us have that debate when we have the data. I thought we were all about evidence-based policy-making. Give us the evidence.

We are asking to pass a piece of legislation which the member for Beauce has proposed that will give us the facts and the evidence in a public manner on a quarterly basis so we can see what corporate welfare is doing. Those few cases where it does work, what was so different about them when the majority of cases turn out to be absolute disasters? Those disasters have a political cost to them, so maybe I will caution the government.

Former Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter was defeated partially over grants and loans of $300 million given to Irving Shipbuilding when it already had won $25 billion in federal contracts. This is a quote from Liberal Premier Stephen McNeil:

Why would we be giving grants, free money, to large corporations who, in some cases, are doing very well, and try to lure them to our province, then get ourselves caught in a situation where we’re really competing with other provinces in a race to the bottom?

I think the premier is right, so the government should give us the information. Let us pass this piece of legislation so we can be the judges of how taxpayer dollars are spent.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today. As a Conservative MP, nothing is more important to me than tradition. As tradition would have it, I would like to acknowledge all those who are watching me and those I meet at the community centres, at all the organized events in my riding, or when I go door to door. As always, I am very happy to represent my constituents in the House of Commons.

I would like to wish a good National Volunteer Week to everyone in Beauport, the people of Limoilou, Giffard, Sainte-Odile, and all around the riding. In Beauport, there are more than 2,500 volunteers. It is the Quebec City neighbourhood with the highest number of volunteers. That makes me very proud. Without volunteers, our social costs would be much higher. I commend all those who put their heart and soul into helping their neighbours and so many others.

I would quickly like to go back to some comments made by the Liberal member for Markham—Thornhill. She boasted that the Liberal government is open and transparent. I would like to remind her that our esteemed Prime Minister's trip to the Aga Khan's island was not all that transparent. The commissioner had to examine and report on this trip, in short, do an investigation, to get to the bottom of things. First of all, I think it is outrageous for a sitting prime minister to go south. He should have stayed in Canada as most Canadians do.

Furthermore, the Liberals' tax reform for small and medium-sized businesses was not all that transparent. The objective was to increase the tax rate for all small and medium-sized businesses and to create jobs in Canada, through the back door, by increasing corporate and small business taxes through changes in how dividends and other various financial vehicles are treated.

Then, there were all of the Minister of Finance's dealings. He hid some funds generated by his family firm, Morneau Shepell. We discovered that he hid these funds in a numbered company in Alberta.

Basically, we have a long list of items proving that the government is not all that open and transparent. This list also includes the amendments and changes the Liberals made to the Access to Information Act. The commissioner stated very clearly in black and white that they are going to impede access to information. On top of that, the Liberals refused to give access to information from the Prime Minister's Office, as they promised during the election campaign.

I would still like to talk about the bill brought forward by the member for Beauce, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He is a man of courage and principle. This bill is consistent with his principles. He does not care to see subsidies, handouts, being given to large corporations. With this bill, however, he does not oppose the idea of giving money to businesses to help them out. He said something very simple: the technology partnerships Canada program spent about $3.3 billion. For 200 businesses, that represents $700 million in loans and 45% of cases. The member for Beauce does not oppose those loans; he is simply asking the government to tell us whether those companies have paid back the $700 million, which breaks down into different amounts, for example $800,000, $300,000, or $2 million. If some companies have not paid back those loans, then we can simply tell Canadians that they were actually subsidies, not loans.

I want to get back to what I said during my earlier question. When I was a student at Laval University, I remember naively telling my professor that I would go to Parliament to talk about philosophy, the Constitution, and the great debates of our time. He told me that there would be debates on these types of issues, yes, but fundamentally, what was at the heart of England's 13th century parliamentary system was accountability, namely what was happening with the money.

There is a reason why we spend two months talking about the budget. It is very important. The budget is at the heart of the parliamentary system. I sometimes find it a little annoying. I wonder if we could talk about Constitutional issues, Quebec's distinct society, the courts, politics, and other issues. However, much to my chagrin, we spend most of our time talking about money. There is a valid reason for this: every one of us here represents about 100,000 people, most of whom pay taxes. All of the government's programs, initiatives, and public policies, good or bad, are dynamic and rely on public funds.

In England in the 13th century, bourgeois capitalists went to see the king to tell him that all his warmongering was getting a little expensive. They asked him to create a place where they could talk to him or his representative and find out what he was doing with their money. That was the precise moment in the course of human history when liberal democracy made its first appearance.

Another example of the importance of knowing what is being done with people's money is the American Revolution. This is complicated and could fill many books, but essentially, the American Revolution happened because England was not interested in taxation with representation. The Americans said they had had enough. If taxes on tea—hence, the Tea Party—were going up, they wanted to know what was being done with their money. The only way the Americans could find out what the British were doing with the money was through elected representation of the colonies in the British Parliament. However, the king, in his arrogance, and his British governing council told the colonies to keep quiet and pay their taxes to His Majesty like they were supposed to. Thus ensued the American Revolution.

Such major historical examples demonstrate how accountability is at the very heart of the parliamentary system and liberal democracy, which guarantees the protection of individual rights and freedoms so dear to our Liberals in this place.

Now, this is what I do not understand. The opposition members, whether they belong to the NDP, the Conservative Party, or the Quebec caucus, introduce sensible and fairly simple bills. Why will the government not just admit it and thank them? Not only is it the purpose of Parliament to inform Canadians about what is being done with their money, but the government itself should know what is happening.

The government could use half of the unpaid $700 million to more quickly implement its much-touted social housing program or pharmacare 2020. However, between $400 million and $700 million has not been paid back to the federal government. Thus, it is completely unacceptable and illogical for the Liberals to tell us that this is not a laudable or justifiable bill.

When I came to Parliament, I had the opportunity to work on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, a very complex committee. It was a bit overwhelming, but I took it very seriously and I did all the reading. That committee just keeps voting on credits for months because it approves all the spending. When I was there, the President of the Treasury Board attended our meetings three times to explain the changes he wanted to make to the main estimates. These were disastrous changes that sought to take away the power of opposition MPs to examine spending vote by vote for over two months. He wanted to cut that time down to about two weeks. It was an attempt on the part of the Liberals to gradually undermine the work and transparency of this democratic institution.

What is more, the Liberals wanted to make major changes that would cut our speaking time in the House of Commons. For heaven's sake. At the time of Confederation, our forefathers sometimes talked for six or seven hours. Now, 20 minutes is too long. For example, today, I have 10 minutes to speak. The Liberals wanted to cut our time down from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. This government never stops trying to cut the opposition's speaking time, and that is not to mention the $7 billion that have still not been allocated.

In short, the bill introduced by the member for Beauce is a laudable bill that goes to the very heart of the principle underlying liberal democracy and the British parliamentary system, that of knowing where taxpayers' money is going.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate and go to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I am sure he will be disappointed to learn that there are only three and a half minutes remaining in the time provided for private members' business this afternoon. We will get started, and I will give him the usual indication when it is time to wrap up.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing, but I know I will get another chance to add some more words.

I appreciate the fact that the member for Beauce has brought forward a private member's bill. I believe he is genuine in what he is attempting to accomplish with the bill. However, he has overlooked a great deal of things. The member from Markham, the government representative, did a fantastic job in trying to explain how the Government of Canada already exceeded what the Stephen Harper government did.

One of the things I really respect about the Prime Minister is that he has consistently said that we should look for ideas where we can improve and make things better, and we are open to doing that. There has been no shortage of ideas. All one needs to do is look at the many different initiatives the government has taken on and has been very successful.

It was not that long ago, and I have mentioned this before in the House, where I had someone show up at a local restaurant in my riding and tell me the Prime Minister had done more in a couple of years than the previous prime minister did in 10 years. As a government, we have a very aggressive and progressive attitude at trying to get things done, to work hard and achieve the best we can for Canadians in all regions of our country.

I want to add some thoughts as to why it is necessary at times for governments to engage with the private sector. If we look at the national government, or provincial governments, governments at different levels, governments of different political parties, even Progressive Conservative governments, even the Harper government, at times they have recognized there is a need to look at how we might have to protect certain industries and jobs that might be in some difficult times. It is nothing new. I believe a majority of Canadians want to ensure that the government is there to support industries if there is a need for it to do so and it can be justified.

Our government has recognized that, particularly in Canada's aerospace industry. It is an industry that is very important to my home province, to the provinces of Quebec, B.C., Ontario, and indirectly to other provinces. Literally tens of thousands jobs were absolutely critical and the Government of Canada needed to get involved. However, it is not the first time Bombardier has received government assistance. Even previous Conservative governments came forward, recognizing there was a need.

Providing that additional accountability and transparency is something our government continues to do in everything, such as when different departments are developing policy. We are seeing more of that.

I see my time has already run out for today. I will be happy to add more words when the debate comes up again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have six and a half minutes remaining in his time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-396, an act to amend the Department of Industry Act (financial assistance), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk about the bill introduced by the member from Beauce concerning federal government accountability and transparency. It is an extremely important issue.

I have to admit that it must seem a little strange, because yesterday I gave a speech in support of the member for Carleton's private member's bill, and today I am rising to support the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Beauce. I am wondering what is happening in my political career. Perhaps it is a sign that we can rise above partisanship and support a good bill.

I do not see how the federal government could oppose the bill in question, considering what it is about. In fact, it would provide a better mechanism to monitor the repayment of loans made to certain companies. It is not very complicated. It is a fairly simple process that would address the concerns of Canadians who want to know how their money is spent and when it will be repaid. When I read the bill, I was surprised that there was no such process in place.

I get the impression that the other side holds the opposite view, so I look forward to hearing what they have to say. That is why we have debates in the House. I expect people to contradict me. I am a good sport, and I am prepared to look at the facts. However, I think that we, the 338 parliamentarians here, should all agree that the need for accountability and transparency is completely normal. That is what Canadians expect. The responsible thing to do is not to give loans to companies without monitoring them very closely so that those loans do not turn into long-term subsidies.

There are times when it is right for the government to intervene. It is normal for the government to play a role in stimulating the economy and helping an economic or industrial sector. It is normal for the government to lend a helping hand to a company that is struggling because of a recession, a difficult situation, or a crisis. Obviously, as New Democrats, we agree with that, but we also want the government to act responsibly and transparently and to make all of the information available.

In keeping with that train of thought, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about economic sectors that sometimes experience crises. Let us talk about the steel and aluminum sectors. Since yesterday, we have been in a trade war with our number one partner, the United States. President Trump has just improperly, illegitimately, and likely illegally, under the rules of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, imposed huge tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum.

We are pleased that the government is standing up and retaliating on that. It is not the ideal situation. It would have been better if we could have avoided this situation entirely, because it will harm not only workers and companies on both sides of the border, but also consumers, who may quite literally have to pay the price. What I mean by that is that the price of certain things is going to go up.

We are very pleased with the government's forceful response. That is what we expected, and we believe it is the right thing to do, but we want this war to end.

In the meantime, how does the government plan to help workers in those two sectors? Those workers will very likely experience work shortages, lost contracts, and probably temporary or permanent layoffs. Does the government have a plan to help workers in the steel and aluminum sectors deal with this?

This is kind of like what we went through in the forestry sector not long ago. We are still in a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber.

It is at times like these that, as a state, as the instrument of the people, we must have the power to intervene and provide loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies. However, getting back to the bill introduced by the member from Beauce, we also need to be kept in the know so we can be sure we have all the information months and years down the line.

We need clarity and transparency about where the money goes, how it is spent, and when and how it is supposed to be paid back, because these are loans, not subsidies. This private member's bill will cost taxpayers nothing and will ensure greater transparency.

The government seems to be saying that this process already exists and that the bill is unnecessary. I am looking forward to my colleague's speech on that.

I would also really like more clarity and transparency around the inappropriate and unjustified multi-billion-dollar investment in buying the Trans Mountain pipeline from Kinder Morgan. The people of this country need to be in the know about that too.

This is a public bailout for specific companies. The government has just written a $4.5-billion cheque to an American company from Texas for a 65-year-old pipe. We think that is huge. There was really no transparency from the government on this decision. Thinking back to the 2015 election campaign and the debates with the Liberal candidates on Montreal Island, I do not remember hearing them say anything about writing multi-billion-dollar cheques to private companies that got cold feet. They never said that the sky is the limit and that they would squeeze us dry and pay whatever it takes to move forward.

Their stubborn attitude goes against all of our greenhouse gas reduction and climate change goals.

I think this is one of the strongest examples of the government's lack of transparency right now. First of all, this was not in the Liberals' electoral platform, and they gave us no warning. Canadians are feeling betrayed and misled. What is more, judging from the reactions we have seen in the community, people are angry today, and so are we.

Secondly, we do not know where this will stop, because the $4.5 billion will pay for the existing equipment, the pipeline, and the terminals. It will not create any jobs, because it does not include any construction. It only covers existing equipment.

Kinder Morgan calculated that it would take about $7.4 billion to proceed with the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, on top of the $4.5 billion. This gives us a total of about $12 billion, assuming nothing goes wrong.

We have already seen projects where the initial estimates for the construction costs were wildly off the mark.

How far is the Liberal government prepared to go with this venture? This whole scheme is a disaster on multiple levels, including respect for provincial jurisdictions, compliance with treaties signed with indigenous communities, adherence to our greenhouse gas reduction targets, and shoreline protection.

In British Columbia, every coastal community is extremely worried because there will be three to four times as many supertankers navigating the beautiful waters of British Columbia. We are talking about roughly 400 tankers a year. Many people are concerned about that especially since we are not talking about traditional oil here. We are talking about bitumen, which sinks to the bottom rather than float on the surface of water. No one knows how to clean it up in the event of a spill.

I would like the Liberal government to show more transparency on that as well.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-396, an act to amend the Department of Industry Act regarding financial assistance. I was honoured to accept an invitation to speak to this private member's bill proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Beauce, whom I proudly serve with on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

This bill is an important step toward ensuring accountability when taxpayer resources are used to subsidize private companies, whether through loans or other guarantees. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that companies that receive repayable financial assistance provide that information to the government so that it can be publicly shared with Canadians.

Currently, when the Canadian government subsidizes through repayable assistance, Canadians have little means of knowing whether those companies have repaid their loans to taxpayers. This lack of accountability means that the government can extend taxpayer resources with little oversight from parliamentarians and Canadians. This lack of transparency is a scandal waiting to happen. I believe this simple legislation can help ensure that resources are being spent in an appropriate manner so that Canadian taxpayers can have the confidence that they will be repaid.

Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars are being used to offer loans to corporations. Therefore, Canadians have a right to transparency on how those companies will pay the loans back. No bank would loan money to anyone without a reasonable expectation of return and a plan to have those funds repaid, yet all too often what starts off as a government loan very quickly becomes a government grant. If Canadian taxpayers are expected to get in the business of financing private ventures, every taxpayer, like a shareholder in any private company, deserves quarterly reports on how those resources are being spent.

One case in particular comes to mind when debating this issue: the repayable loan of $375 million over four years paid to Bombardier by the Liberal government. This payment may have been necessary to support a Canadian company, but surely taxpayers are owed accountability in terms of how these funds are being spent and how they will be repaid. When my hon. colleague from the Beauce asked the government for further information on the terms and conditions of this loan payment, he was denied that information. In effect, Canadians were denied the right to judge the government on its use of taxpayer resources.

Now let us look at what has changed since then. In the last two years, Bombardier's share price has significantly improved, more than doubling, and yet Canadians do not have the information to judge whether the investment in loans by the federal government was worth the cost. In fact, there has been considerable movement on this file, as the C Series jet, which the government spent hundreds of millions to invest in, was bought by European conglomerate Airbus, after struggling to reach sales targets. Jobs and investment have now left Canada, and facilities to construct these taxpayer-subsidized jets are being built in Alabama. Canadians deserve to know how companies that receive taxpayer funds will pay back those funds and how they will be using those funds.

The case of Bombardier is certainly not isolated. In fact, nearly 200 companies have received $700 million of taxpayer assistance, but other than that headline number, there is little accountability to taxpayers. How many jobs are these projects creating? How much are these investments stimulating our economy? When will those loans be repaid to the taxpayer? These are all good questions, questions that could be better answered should Bill C-396 be passed.

I want to take a second to recognize that government investment can be very necessary in limited circumstances. I think of the bailout of our auto industry during the last financial crisis, when the previous Conservative government invested in shares that provided value to taxpayers, saved jobs in Ontario and across Canada, and ensured that automotive investment stayed in Canada. Canadians have a right to information regarding these deals because an informed citizenry is essential to a healthy democracy.

I am proud of the work that my colleague, the hon. member for Beauce, did when he served as the industry minister in 2006 and 2007. He published information regarding these loans: the amount and the conditions for repayment. Due to this, many of the companies actually started repaying their loans due to public pressure.

I understand that there may be some worries about Canada's competitive advantage should this legislation pass. However, the principle of accountability must trump all other considerations. In fact, I believe that accountability is a foundational principle for all actions undertaken by government. If Canada demonstrates an increased level of openness and transparency, we can set an example for other nations. This accountability will ensure that government undertakes financial assistance activities that meet the appropriate threshold under international law, and that we can be certain that these will be good subsidies. This is an example that Canada should set, and the world should follow.

Many times Canadian companies, like Bombardier, are unfairly attacked by foreign competitors that receive subsidies from their respective governments. If Canada passes Bill C-396, we will be showing the world that we have nothing to hide when we provide financial assistance to our companies.

There are many cases where financial assistance to companies can even achieve legitimate policy ends. I think of the construction of railroads across our great nation that could not have been achieved without significant government support. There is no reason why this financial support cannot provide a net benefit to taxpayers.

For example, in May 2013, Sandvine Incorporated was given a loan of $9.5 million and later paid back $14 million. Not only were taxpayers given their money back, but the deal helped this company generate jobs and create economic value for Canadians.

We must always place as a priority, however, that governments are not driven by political consideration or emotion but instead by hard facts. Providing grants or so-called repayable loans to private companies should be absolutely the last resort. Instead, governments should seek to build the foundation that allows private investment to thrive in an environment that emphasizes free markets.

It is not the job of the government to pick winners and losers. If the Liberals have decided they want to pick winners with taxpayer money, the least they can do is provide transparency on how taxpayers will be repaid. This bill would create that transparency and would provide accountability for companies so they would be compelled to repay their loans, rather than hiding in the darkness of government secrecy.

I suspect the Liberal government will vote against this bill to provide greater transparency, which is a real shame. The Liberal Party campaigned on doing politics differently. Sadly, as soon as the dust settled after the election, we quickly realized it was business as usual with the same old Liberal Party. The train of pork emanating from the government is simply astounding. At a time of global economic expansion, foreign investment is leaving our country at a record pace and the Liberals are using taxpayer resources to try to stem the tide, unsuccessfully. The problem is that when the economy is growing, it is fairly easy to run deficits, but when the economy inevitably contracts, the taxpayer will be left on the hook for these loans.

During the last economic crisis, the Conservatives acted in the national interest and injected an unprecedented amount into our economy. We saved our auto industry and ensured our country became the first out of the G7 to come out of the recession. That is a record of which we can be proud.

Let us remember, however, that this fiscal flexibility was only possible because of decades of Liberal and Conservative fiscal prudence. That fiscal prudence balanced Canada's budget in 2015 and would have ensured that Canada would be well placed to weather future economic storms.

Unfortunately, the government has used these good economic times to expand spending at a rate that goes beyond sustainability. It is replacing private investment with taxpayer funds, but without the same oversight that investors in private companies can expect.

Bill C-396 is an important step. When Canadians get transparency and accountability, they can judge the government's actions. When decisions are made in a shrouded manner, it takes an extraordinary amount of effort by taxpayers and parliamentarians to get to the truth. The government counts on this lack of transparency to get away with giving repayable loans that are often or never repaid, loans which Canadians have a right to examine and question.

I strongly support Bill C-396. As accountability is the foundation of a free and democratic society, so too is the right of Canadians to examine and pass judgment on government assistance to private companies.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and for admitting that the government could invest in the economy.

Our government recognizes the importance of innovation as a critical tool for business growth. That is why, like many other industrialized countries around the world, we are offering a financial solution to companies that want to grow, access new markets, and develop technologies that will benefit an innovation-based economy.

Our innovation and skills plan establishes a long-term economic vision for Canada that is fuelled by innovation, strong growth, talent, and a collective will to ensure that no one is left behind.

In order to successfully implement the innovation and skills plan, we have to find new ways to reflect how governments support and stimulate economic growth that is inclusive through greater harmonization, better collaboration, and a strategic approach for supporting innovation in every region of Canada.

Let me be clear. This is not corporate welfare or subsidies for big business. This is smart investment in Canada's businesses, in Canada's people, and in Canadian ideas from coast to coast to coast. These investments will create thousands of middle-class jobs and, in particular, create the economy that we want to have both now and for our children and grandchildren. The support provided by government is done with a merit-based approach and focused on specific projects with results and goals set out clearly.

Members should note that this support is provided in an open and transparent manner, and in accordance with proactive disclosure requirements for grants and contributions that enhance the transparency and oversight of public resources.

Our government's proactive disclosure requirements already meet, and in many cases exceed, the requirements set out in Bill C-396. For example, the member for Beauce said that before, “...taxpayers could go to the department's website and find out which companies had received financial assistance [and] how much they received...”.

I am surprised that the member opposite is not aware that this has been the Government of Canada's practice since 2006, and it is still the practice. In fact, under this government, these requirements have been enhanced.

Since April 1, agencies, crown corporations, and federal departments have been following the new guidelines on the reporting of grants and contributions awards. The new guidelines set clear and explicit requirements for federal agencies with respect to the proactive disclosure of their grants and contributions, and these requirements largely exceed those set out in the bill before us. The guidelines take a whole-of-government approach instead of targeting a single federal department.

All information on federal government grants and contributions will be posted at www.open.canada.ca. Canadians will have access to a single site where they can better monitor how the government is using public resources.

The amount of information to disclose increased considerably, with respect to both the previously announced requirements and the requirements set out in Bill C-396. From now on, federal agencies will have to disclose much more information for each disclosure. This includes a more detailed section on the objective of the awards, the expected results, and the recipient. The bill we are debating today does not contain such explicit requirements.

In addition, if the bill is passed, these publication requirements will be strengthened and modernized by Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, currently before the Senate. Bill C-58 introduces the legislative requirement for the proactive publication of grants and contributions in line with the new guidelines that I just outlined.

I also want to clarify a few things regarding some of the statements made in previous discussions on Bill C-396. More specifically, I would like to revisit something the member for Beauce said, specifically that Industry Canada publishes individual loan agreements, or repayable contribution agreements, including the specific terms and conditions of repayment. That is one of the requirements that Bill C-396 aims to impose on Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

I want to make it very clear that ISED, the former Industry Canada, has never published the terms and conditions of individual funding agreements or the agreements themselves. The ISED website contains general documents on the terms and conditions as well as program guides that include information on the repayment of funding contributions. This gives Canadians some idea of the government's objectives and needs when public resources are used to support businesses and it gives businesses an overview of the kinds of measures that might be used to determine their repayment schedule.

By contrast, Bill C-396 requires the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to publish information on individual agreements, thereby forcing the government to publish sensitive, confidential commercial information on private Canadian businesses. That information could potentially be used by a domestic or foreign competitor to undermine the competitiveness of Canadian firms in the global innovation economy.

This would be of particular concern to smaller, privately owned businesses that are not already required to publicly report on things like revenues and expenditures in the same way as publicly traded companies. These are matters of privacy and security that we need to contend with as well.

In essence, Bill C-396 would place undue disclosure requirements on individual Canadian businesses, and compromise their competitive position in the market. I, for one, would like the member opposite to explain why he thinks it is okay to impose undue regulatory burdens on businesses, especially our small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, they are the largest receivers of government investment, which they using to try to scale up and grow their businesses right here in Canada, as opposed to moving elsewhere.

The newly implemented proactive publication requirements for grants and contributions, as well as Bill C-58, fully support the principles of greater transparency and accountability with respect to the use of public money, without unduly imposing transparency requirements on private businesses and organizations.

In summary, Bill C-396 would not improve the government's proactive publication practices as intended, and would undermine the government's efforts to collaborate with Canadian businesses that benefit Canada by generating investment, developing new technologies, and enhancing Canadian innovation capacity and expertise.

Since forming government in 2015, we have taken concrete action to ensure greater openness and transparency, without compromising business confidence. While the member for Beauce presents the bill under the veil of openness and transparency, we all know that its real purpose is ideological. That member is fundamentally opposed to the idea of taxpayer dollars going to Canadian businesses. His position is clear: he does not believe in investing in the people, ideas, and innovations of Canadian businesses. What is not clear is if he speaks on behalf of his party.

The member for Beauce also questions the relevance and importance of the work carried out by our regional development agencies and their support for small and medium-sized businesses across Canada, support that we have increased as a government. Of course, that is his prerogative, but it is also unclear whether that is the position of his leader and his party, which is especially interesting because he is also the Conservative Party's official critic of ISED and a member of the industry committee. Do they view investing in Canadian businesses as corporate welfare? Certainly we do not.

For all those reasons, our government cannot support this bill. We are going to keep supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must say that the hon. member across the way has an interesting definition of “competitive advantage”. He is saying that when the government gives independent corporations funds, they do not have to disclose a repayment schedule because that might somehow limit their competitive advantage. I would argue that they have a significant competitive advantage, because the taxpayer just gave them a loan and we have no idea whether it is ever going to be repaid.

Before I go any further in my speech, I want to congratulate friends of mine, Austin and Charis Olij, who had a new baby girl, Brianna. I just want to tell the new little girl that she is already $22,000 in debt, thanks to the national government. However, she is also the proud owner of a pipeline right here in Canada. I congratulate the Olijs on their new little baby girl, and I congratulate the new little girl on being heavily indebted and the owner of a pipeline already.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

It makes you want to cry.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

As my hon. colleague from Barrie—Innisfil said, it makes you want to cry. I thought for sure I had to get that in there.

Madam Speaker, I shake my head again at the comments made earlier about the competitive advantage. What is really interesting is that if we look over the list of all the companies that we have given millions of dollars to over the years, we see that the government has done business with them as well. It is interesting that not only do we give them big subsidies, or “loans” that have never been repaid, but we also do significant business with them as well.

One of these companies is IBM. Members might be familiar with IBM. It is a very old company. It made its fortune during the lead-up to and during the Second World War. I believe it is the company that is at the centre of the Phoenix fiasco.

Here we are paying out $33 million to IBM. Has that money ever been repaid? We do not know. Will it ever be repaid? We also do not know. Therefore, I commend the member for Beauce for bringing this particular bill forward, because it has highlighted for me how we have given certain companies in this country a significant competitive advantage.

We often have a very rigorous competition when we hand out contracts. I understand that this was done in the case of Phoenix. When a company lands a government contract, it becomes quite a player in its particular industry. A company that has a government contract will often go out and market that fact. I see all the time companies saying that they have contracts with the Department of National Defence. They wear it as a badge of honour. However, we have not only given IBM contracts; we have also given IBM $33 million with no repayment schedule that we, as the taxpayers of Canada, can see.

Another one on this list is $4.5 million for Lockheed Martin Canada. I thought that was fairly interesting. I understand we may have given Lockheed Martin this money for the work that we had done collectively with a number of other countries when we were developing the F-35. This money may have been a gift for the development work that Lockheed Martin needed to do. I do not know for sure. However, what we do know is that the government has ignored the F-35. Here is this big gift of money to Lockheed Martin, and we have no idea whether we are ever going to get it back. We certainly will not be buying F-35s at this moment, so that money seems to have gone off to develop airplanes for the world. I know that many of our allies are using that airplane, but I do not see that we are necessarily getting a great return on investment for that one as well.

Another one that was interesting to me was Navstar Canada, Inc. If I understand correctly, these are the folks who build heavy-duty trucks. I thought that was interesting.

I used to work in the automotive field. I worked on diesel pickups for most of my life before I got here. I am familiar with Navistar. I believe it provided engines for Ford pickup trucks. It is interesting to see that Navistar received a loan at some point in 2005 of $30 million. To its credit, it paid some off. From the sheet I am looking at right now, it looks like it paid off a whole $410. Over the last 10 years or so, it has paid off $410. That is significant. It was one of the interesting numbers, because it actually changed, unlike a lot of the numbers I have gone through. For example, the government gave MDS Aero Support Corporation $6.1 million in 1997, and the books show that it still owes $6,100,000.

I again commend the member for Beauce for bringing this forward and for bringing it to my attention. Corporate welfare is one of my great frustrations, particularly from the Government of Canada, regardless of political stripe.

I congratulated my friend Austin earlier. He is a mechanic in northern British Columbia. I do not know exactly what he makes, but as someone who has worked in the field before, I imagine that he pays probably $12,000 in income tax every year, and probably about $7,000 to $10,000 of that is federal income tax.

We can see how many mechanics it would take to pay those kinds of numbers, when we are dealing with Navistar Canada's $30 million. It would take a lot of mechanics working across the country to pay that $30 million.

We have heard about trips that have been taken by people here that have cost taxpayers $200,000. When we break that down into the average automotive mechanic's contribution to the federal coffers, it works out to 200 mechanics working all year to pay for the Prime Minister's trip.

What is even more egregious about this is that in some cases, people who are working in the world of commerce are competing in the marketplace only to have their tax dollars, the money they worked all year for, go directly to their competition. I have a good example of this in my riding. The government gave a grant for last-mile Internet. One particular company got a $2-million grant to bring the Internet. It caused competition with the folks who were already operating in that space and had been there for 30 years. A new company that received a large grant from the government is now competing with the mom-and-pop shops that had been operating there for over 30 years.

That grates on me incredibly. Folks have worked hard for a very long time to build the basic infrastructure for the Internet in northern Alberta, only to have larger companies come in that have good grant writers and that get government grants and then compete in exactly the same space with exactly the same products.

In this particular case, a constituent of mine was servicing several hundred farmyards and acreages in northern Alberta, and he was able to provide adequate Internet service for about $69.99. The other company, which received a large grant from the government, came in and for $39.99 was able to provide the same Internet service. It basically put the other guy out of business. He had to do other things.

This is where government subsidies are a real frustration, particularly where I come from in northern Alberta. We are a free market place. We typically like that. When it comes to the Internet, there is a lot of competition, and that has driven the government down, for sure.

I thank the member for Beauce again for bringing this legislation forward. I am very disappointed to hear that the government is not going to support the bill, although I am sure we have achieved something just by getting this list out.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I am somewhat disappointed with my Liberal colleague's position on this bill, given that it has the support of those on the left in the NDP and those on the right in the Conservative Party.

In Canada, it is a good sign when those on the left and socialists support a bill that limits corporate handouts to businesses. That is good news. This bill ensures that there is greater transparency concerning the amounts and the financial grants or contributions that the government gives to major corporations.

What is a little disappointing is that these corporations currently receive assistance from the Canadian government. We are told that they receive repayable loans and contributions. However, when we take a look at the numbers, more than 200 companies in Canada received millions of dollars in loans. We might be talking about $300 million or $60 million. In fact, $702 million was paid out to companies, but we do not know if this contributions were repaid. Some of these loans date back to 1997. Why do we not know if they were repaid?

It is true. My colleague was quite right in saying that when individual loans are repaid, the repayment is indicated on the department's website. However, there are no further details for some loans. I will quote what it says on the government website. There is no information about the repayment of certain loans because this:

“Indicates that the company has not provided ISED with an authorization to disclose repayment information.”

What we take from that is that the companies themselves are the ones who decide whether they want their loan repayment to be made public or not. That should not be the case. That is taxpayers' money, and Canadians have the right to know what is happening with it and whether it was paid back or not. That is what this bill seeks to do. It is a very clear and simple bill.

Under the bill, when a company like Bombardier or ABM receives financial assistance from the government, the government must, within 90 days, publish on its website the amount of the loan and the insurance provided to the company by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, as well as the type of insurance provided, whether loan or credit insurance. We want to know the missing details, which would tell us about all of the loans made, the loan insurance or credit insurance provided, and the grants awarded, as well as the circumstances of the loan and the terms and conditions of repayment. The government does not want to go along with that.

Indeed, the government does not want to share that information, claiming that it could be part of a company's trade secrets. I really do not believe that a loan repayment and the repayment conditions are part of a company's trade secrets. The repayment method and schedule are not trade secrets. That should be public, since the money given to those companies comes from all taxpayers.

This is unfair for small businesses, especially businesses in Beauce and the other regions of Canada, which are forced to pay taxes and, at the end of the day, never receive any of these loans. We want to know whether they are loans or grants. If financial assistance has not been repaid after 20 years, why was it not paid back? What were the repayment terms and conditions? That is what we do not know. That is what the bill calls for. It is a very simple piece of legislation.

I am very disappointed that the government is not being more transparent and is letting big corporations decide whether taxpayers will get any information about repayment of those loans. That is a real shame.

The Liberal Party and the government could have been more open with taxpayers and proven that the $702 million handed over to companies over the past few years were not grants, but were indeed repayable loans with repayment conditions. Now Canadians are wondering about the $702 million. The fact that we do not know the repayment arrangements suggests to me that the money was given to those businesses.

Since we do not know how the money is supposed to be repaid, that means it was a grant. This is a real letdown.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 6, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

It being 2:03 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:03 p.m.)