Evidence of meeting #61 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Glenn Campbell  Director, International Policy and Analysis Division , Department of Finance
Gilles Moreau  Director General, National Compensation, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Public Safety
Jonathan Roy  Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy, Health, Justice, Culture, Department of Finance
Daniel MacDonald  Chief, Federal-Provincial Relations Division, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Department of Finance
John Davies  Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
Darryl Hirsch  Senior Policy Analyst, Intelligence Policy and Coordination, Department of Public Safety
Nigel Harrison  Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
David Gillis  Director General, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
David Lee  Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization; Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Samuel Godefroy  Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Alwyn Child  Director General, Program Development and Guidance Directorate, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Annette Nicholson  Secretary and General Counsel, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
Lenore Duff  Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Dominique La Salle  Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Nathalie Martel  Director, Old Age Security Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Bruno Rodrigue  Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
Annette Vermaeten  Director, Task Force, Special Projects, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Eileen Boyd  Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel, Privy Council Office
Neil Bouwer  Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Lynn Tassé  Director, Canada Gazette, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Gerard Peets  Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Department of Industry
Patricia Brady  Director, Investment, Insolvency, Competition and Corporate Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Andy Lalonde  Manager, Preclearance, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Public Safety
Lynn Hemmings  Senior Chief, Payments, Payments and Pensions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

I have Ms. Nash on the list.

8:50 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to go back to some of the concerns that have led to calls for strengthening the Investment Canada Act, something that captured national attention, which has already been mentioned, was when there was a proposed takeover of the Potash Corporation, and the minister made a decision to block that takeover.

Subsequently, very shortly afterwards, there was an NDP motion put forward in the House of Commons. I want to quickly read it. This was in 2010, and that motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, since the recent takeover bid for Potash Corporation raises concerns about the adequacy of the foreign investment review process under the Investment Canada Act (ICA), the Government of Canada should take immediate steps to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure the views of those most directly affected by any takeover are considered, and any decision on whether a takeover delivers a “net benefit” to Canada is transparent by: (a) making public hearings a mandatory part of foreign investment review; (b) ensuring those hearings are open to all directly affected and expert witnesses they choose to call on their behalf; (c) ensuring all conditions attached to approval of a takeover be made public and be accompanied by equally transparent commitments to monitoring corporate performance on those conditions and appropriate and enforceable penalties for failure to live up to those conditions;

That motion was adopted unanimously in the House of Commons. That was two years or a year and a half ago, maybe. Clearly, these changes have not lived up to the motion passed by the House of Commons.

In your opinion, if there were hearings where members of the public were able to express their opinions, people from a community that might be affected, people who work in a given workplace, would such a change strengthen the Investment Canada Act?

8:50 p.m.

Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Department of Industry

Gerard Peets

Such a change would certainly change it. It would change the aspects of it that relate to commercial confidentiality I spoke to earlier.

What I can do is just restate the idea, which is that the confidentiality provisions are there to provide an environment that is conducive to investors providing the information the minister would need as part of his review under the Investment Canada Act. They are also to protect from harm that could come from the disclosure of confidential information that relates to Canadian businesses or investors.

8:50 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

I guess the concern is that there have been thousands of foreign takeovers. And many hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, not all because of takeovers, obviously, but some through foreign takeovers. Some of the people most directly affected, the people in communities, the people in these workplaces, have no rights when it comes to that takeover.

There are not proprietary interests only. There are the interests of people who are directly affected and whose jobs are at stake. I guess I find it strange that they're not involved in this process. Yes, investors are affected, but the people who work in these facilities have a direct stake in what happens when there's a foreign takeover.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

You have 30 seconds for a short response.

8:55 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Is the human impact of these takeovers a factor Investment Canada has been considering?

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Go ahead, Ms. Brady.

8:55 p.m.

Director, Investment, Insolvency, Competition and Corporate Policy Directorate, Department of Industry

Patricia Brady

Well, when I listed the net benefit factors earlier, one of the factors is the impact of the investment on employment levels in Canada and the participation of Canadians in the Canadian business that persists after the investment. So I would suggest that it is a consideration as part of the net benefit test.

In terms of consultations, the affected provinces are consulted regularly as part of the review process as well.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. McLeod, please.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To use some of the suggestions made by my colleagues earlier, this is a budget implementation act, and therefore it is focused on jobs and long-term prosperity and growth. I think what the opposition is alluding to are complex and large changes to an act that of course Industry Canada would be tasked with. Again, I want to look at these changes in the context of transparency and the accountability of companies. They're important changes, but those bigger questions are not left to this particular committee.

My colleague wanted to make a few comments also.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Ms. Glover.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I took special note of the amendment you described involving acceptance of securities. The amendment is that a provision will be added to authorize the minister to accept security offered by an investor or penalties will be ordered by a court in the event of a contravention of the act.

Having said that, can you provide us with a real-time example of this and tell us what the benefits are of having this new amendment?

8:55 p.m.

Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Department of Industry

Gerard Peets

In terms of providing an example, this is a new measure. It's like what kind of security.... That's not specified in the text.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Can you think of an example where this amendment would have benefited the situation? Is there a real example you can think of where the absence of this unfortunately wasn't helpful?

8:55 p.m.

Director, Investment, Insolvency, Competition and Corporate Policy Directorate, Department of Industry

Patricia Brady

Without commenting on specific cases, which we can't do, I can say this is a measure that's intended to promote compliance. It's intended to promote compliance before a breach.

I would suggest that in cases where there were breaches, perhaps that wouldn't have happened if these compliance measures had been in force. Again, they are intended to promote compliance from the outset and to prevent breaches.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

I don't want you to violate the privacy or confidentiality of the cases, so I appreciate that.

Thanks for the explanation.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I want to thank both of you for coming and for staying this late. We appreciate your being here and giving us your comments on this section. Thank you.

We'll bring in the officials from the Department of Public Safety for division 29, which is the Customs Act, on page 326 of the bill.

Welcome to the committee. Please give us a brief overview of these changes in the bill, and we'll have questions from members after that.

May 17th, 2012 / 8:55 p.m.

Andy Lalonde Manager, Preclearance, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Public Safety

Thank you, Chair and committee members.

The CBSA is looking to make three additions or amendments to the Customs Act to address a situation called “mixed traffic corridors”. Mixed traffic corridors occur when we have to move an office farther inland from the Canada-U.S. border and it causes the mingling of domestic traffic in Canada with traffic coming from the United States into Canada.

In the long term, we want to be prepared for a situation like that, which we're calling an “extenuating circumstance”. It doesn't happen every day, but a flood, fire damage, or a spill at one of our locations could cause us to have to move the office inland. We have a short-term need, and I'll explain a little later what that is.

There are three sections that we're proposing. The first section would provide the minister with the authority to direct a portion of the public roadway—not the entire roadway—or other right of access leading directly from the Canada-United States border to a designated customs office. That designation is required when there is no sterile corridor leading directly from the border to the customs office and persons arriving in Canada from the United States are co-mingled with domestic persons before they actually reach our office.

The second section would obligate all persons travelling within this mixed traffic corridor, which would mean international travellers as well as domestic travellers, to briefly report and advise the officer whether they are travelling domestic or arriving from the United States.

The third section would provide us with the enforcement authorities that we require. The previous section that requires travellers to report to us engages all our authorities that we currently have to deal with international travellers. That means stopping impaired drivers, stopping people for wants and warrants, and stopping people for abducting children—it means all of that. Currently, we don't have much authority to do that with domestic travellers. These three sections would provide us with the authority to do our job every day the way we need to do it.

We appreciate that it might sound a little harsh to be questioning domestic travellers, but unfortunately we have not found another solution when we encounter a situation where we have to move an office inland and we are co-mingling traffic. We've found no way other than to shut the border down, which is not the best thing to do.

We had to do that for six weeks a few years back at the Cornwall-Massena crossing. There were great economic impacts on the area, not to mention social impacts. People who live in border communities don't really recognize the border, because they use it daily to commute to work, visit friends, and do all sorts of other things. There was a lot of hurt that went on for six weeks when we had to close it down. We don't want that to happen again. These three sections would prevent that from occurring.

9 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for those remarks.

We'll hear from Mr. Marston first.

9 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

The Minister of Public Safety has a counterpart in the U.S. Would he have a corresponding set of empowerments that would allow him to do the same type of designating?

9 p.m.

Manager, Preclearance, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Public Safety

Andy Lalonde

It's not exactly the same, but the United States Border Patrol has an authority that we in Canada don't. They have the ability to stop traffic that is near the border and do questioning, which is similar to this but not exactly the same. We do not have the authority to stop traffic close to the border.

9 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

How many crossings would this affect?

9 p.m.

Manager, Preclearance, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Public Safety

Andy Lalonde

This was in response to the problems we had at the Cornwall-Massena crossing. The sections would be put in the act in case this ever occurs again. We learned from that occasion that we weren't prepared for a situation where there was an emergency or a very unusual circumstance that would force us to move an office inland. The sections would prepare us to deal with that situation.

9 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

I suppose we must have some crossings that are in low-water plains where there is a potential for flooding.

9 p.m.

Manager, Preclearance, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Public Safety

Andy Lalonde

We do out west, particularly along the Red River.