Finance Committee on May 17th, 2012

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Has there been a comparison of the authorized inspection results and those that were performed without formal legal authority?

[Neil Bouwer]

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has conducted some small-scale pilots in this area, and we have had success with those pilots.

There is an alternate service delivery program for the inspection of seed crops of hybrid corn in Ontario and one for hybrid canola in Alberta. Those have been running for about 15 years. There was also a small pilot project for private soybean seed crop inspection, which was carried out in Ontario in 2011.

These small programs represent a small amount of the seed crops—less than 5%. Nevertheless, we have learned from those experiences, and this proposal seeks to formalize the legal authorities in those areas but also to build on the experience in those pilots.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Could you provide the committee with the results of those comparisons?

[Neil Bouwer]

Certainly. If the member is interested, we can certainly provide whatever we can in terms of the results of those pilots.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

There being no further questions, Mr. Bouwer, thank you very much for being with us here this evening. We appreciate your time and your responses.

We'll move to division 27, on the Statutory Instruments Act.

Welcome to the committee.

Welcome, Ms. Tassé.

We look forward to your opening remarks, and we'll have questions from members after that.

[Lynn Tassé, Director, Canada Gazette, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to talk to you about two amendments related to the Canada Gazette. The Canada Gazette is currently published in print and electronic formats. Public Works and Government Services Canada proposes to publish the Canada Gazette solely in electronic format. Eliminating the printed copy would make it possible to save on printing and distribution costs, to avoid duplication of paper and electronic copies and to meet the government's commitment to sustainable development.

Dissemination of the information contained in the Canada Gazette is now more effectively achieved through electronic publication, which is easy to access, practical for readers and environmentally friendly. Consequently, the requirement to deliver copies of the Canada Gazette to senators and members of Parliament, or to sell it to the public, must be deleted from the Statutory Instruments Act.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Scott Brison]

Thank you for your presentation.

Are there any questions? Mr. Caron, you have the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I would like to ask a brief question.

What concerns me are the people who don't have access to the electronic version because they don't have a computer. However, there is still access to a library.

Are public libraries given notice that they may print the Canada Gazette on request? Is that regularly done and is it a way to ensure access?

[Lynn Tassé]

There is Internet access at municipal and public libraries. Printers are normally available at those locations. Users may print the page or pages they wish or photocopy the paper copy found in the library.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Apart from senators and MPs, how many public subscribers are there?

[Lynn Tassé]

This year, we have 223 subscribers. The figure is falling from year to year. There were 1,466 subscribers five years ago. It's really in free fall. We lose subscribers every year.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much, Ms. Tassé.

Next, we will call officials from Industry Canada to discuss division 28, the Investment Canada Act.

Welcome to the committee. Thank you for being here late at night.

Thank you very much, Ms. Brady, for waiting around so long. I appreciate that.

Perhaps you have an opening presentation, an overview of the amendments, and then we'll go to questions from members.

[Gerard Peets, Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Department of Industry]

Certainly. Thank you.

My name is Gerard Peets. I'm the acting director general at marketplace framework policy branch at Industry Canada. I'm here with Patricia Brady, who is the director of investment policy.

We're here to speak to division 28, which would amend the Investment Canada Act to do two things. The first is to improve transparency by allowing the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to publicly communicate more information on the review process. The second is to add an enforcement tool to promote investor compliance with undertakings or commitments that they provide as part of the investment review process.

Specifically, to improve transparency, the amendments proposed in clause 480 of the bill would allow the minister to publicly disclose the fact that he has sent a preliminary notice to an investor that he is not satisfied about the likely net benefit of the investment. He would also be able to publicly explain his reasons for sending such a notice, provided it would not cause prejudice to the Canadian business or to the investor.

With respect to enforcement, the amendment proposed in clause 479 of the bill would authorize the minister to accept security from investors for payments of any penalties that could be imposed by a court for a breach of undertakings.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for that overview.

We'll begin members' questions with Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I want to echo the chair's comment. Thank you for waiting around so long and for being here at the finance committee this evening.

The whole area of the Investment Canada Act, as you know, has been a subject of much public debate and concern in a number of quarters. There have been some very high-profile situations that have highlighted that concern, probably most recently in the London area, with Caterpillar taking over the production of railway cars in the London area and then subsequently deciding to close down that facility. A lot of people lost their jobs. The technology that was in that facility moved south, and there was real concern that there were not conditions put on Caterpillar when they took over that plant to ensure the continuity of the investment in that community, which had been there for many years.

There are, of course, other high-profile situations, such as the Potash Corporation and the proposed takeover there, and prior to that, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates. Both of those takeovers were rejected. One of the areas that has been in the public debate is this interpretation of net benefit to Canada and what that means. One could argue that the situation at Caterpillar was definitely not in the net benefit to Canada, regardless of the application of the law, but there has been a concern about the lack of clarity.

So my initial question is why didn't these changes include the interpretation of net benefit to Canada so that this area would have been better defined for business, for communities, for all of those who have been concerned about these recent instances?

[Gerard Peets]

Thanks for the question.

I can certainly appreciate the spirit in which the question is being asked. My answers will be limited mainly to the actual amendments I came prepared to speak to, but I also can speak to what the net benefit test currently is and what the factors are that are considered by the minister in making the determination under that test.

I guess these amendments are really targeted amendments aimed, consistent with the existing act and the way it works, at increasing transparency and providing an additional enforcement tool.

If it would be useful, my colleague would be happy to speak to the net benefit test and what the factors are that the minister may take into account.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Just in the interest of time.... I'm familiar with what the factors are, but there has been a lack of clarity and a lack of consistency in the interpretation, and that's why there has been a call for better definition of net benefit to Canada.

Obviously you're not here to interpret why this was or was not included in these changes. But let me ask you, has there been any study done by Investment Canada as to options around better defining net benefit to Canada? Has any study been undertaken?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There is one minute left.

[Gerard Peets]

One thing that has been done recently is the competition policy review panel that was done in 2008. My colleague Patricia could speak to what it said about the issue of the Investment Canada Act.

[Patricia Brady, Director, Investment, Insolvency, Competition and Corporate Policy Directorate, Department of Industry]

The competition policy review panel was struck in 2008. It was an expert panel, led by Red Wilson. The report they came out with also came out in 2008; it's often called the Wilson report. As part of their review of Canada's competitiveness, they reviewed the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act and made recommendations on how the Investment Canada Act could be improved, mostly how it could be liberalized.

But they made a number of recommendations around how it could be made more transparent. Some of those recommendations were adopted in 2009 through amendments to the act that allowed for more communication of information about the review process. The amendments that are in this budget bill would build on the 2009 amendments to increase transparency.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

But my question was, has there been any study or research done by the department on better defining net benefit to Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Make just a brief response, and then we'll move on.

[Gerard Peets]

I'm not aware of that.