Evidence of meeting #96 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll come to order and start where we left off at division 8, clause 192 of Bill C-44.
The amendment BQ-6 is inadmissible because it's contrary to the principle of the bill established at second reading. However, you can speak to it.
We will not deal with it as an amendment, but you do have the right to speak to your amendment. If you want to make your point, go ahead.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I have the right to explain it.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning.
We are proposing that clause 192 be amended by replacing line 9 on page 110 with the following: “following year, $300,000,000; and”. Now I will explain why we are asking for the amendment. It's important to understand that, originally, the change the government sought was to raise the reviewable investment amount, pursuant to the Investment Canada Act, from $600 million to $1 billion.
Our party sees that as a very bad idea because the Investment Canada Act requires the economic development minister to review foreign investments exceeding a certain amount. To that end, the minister has to examine whether the transaction is sound. That's called a net benefits analysis. He also has the power to allow or refuse the transaction and even to attach conditions to it. We believe that setting the reviewable investment amount at $300 million, as opposed to $1 billion, would be much more appropriate. The reality is that very few of Quebec's big companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange are valued at over $1 billion. You can count them on two hands; there are fewer than 10.
When the act came into force, the amount was set at $300 million, which was in line with what had been negotiated under the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. We would even be in favour of setting the threshold below $300 million, but we do think $300 million is a reasonable number, and that is why we are proposing it.
It would apply to companies like RONA bought by foreign interests. That deal was worth over $1 billion. You also have companies like Canam Group, a company worth less than $1 billion that was recently bought by the Americans. When a purchase exceeds that amount, to protect national interests, the minister is able to review the transaction and determine whether or not it should proceed and can attach conditions to it. In our view, the economic interests of all Quebeckers would be far better served by a lower threshold.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
There are witnesses here for division 8 as well, if anybody has any questions for Mr. DeWolfe and Ms. Brady.
The reason the motion is out of order is that the principle of the bill aims to increase the threshold from the current $600 million. Decreasing the threshold to $300 million is contrary to the intention of the bill to increase it from its current level. That's why it's denied. We will not deal with the amendment; it's out of order.
But is there any question for Ms. Brady or Mr. DeWolfe?
Mr. Ouellette.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Ms. Brady, or Mr. DeWolfe, I was just wondering what process led to the decision here. How did you come up with that decision?
Patricia Brady Director General, Investment Review Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
There is already a schedule in the Investment Canada Act for the threshold to rise. It started gradually in 2009 and rose to $400 million, then $600 million, then $800 million, and the intention was that it then go to $1 billion in two years from now. This amendment would accelerate that already planned increase by two years.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
There was a committee, I believe, that made recommendations.
Director General, Investment Review Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
That's right, the Competition Policy Review Panel in 2009 made recommendations to raise the threshold to $1 billion.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have one final question. Who comprises that committee?
Director General, Investment Review Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
The Competition Policy Review Panel?
Director General, Investment Review Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
It was led by Red Wilson, and the precise membership escapes me now. There were a number of lawyers and prominent business people in Canada primarily, but Red Wilson was the chair of the panel.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I'd actually like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for proposing his amendment, even though it is out of order. The increase does indeed go against the intent of the act.
In fact, I suggest that my colleagues vote against clause 192, in its entirety. That way, although problematic, the hike to $1 billion would not take effect right away but, instead, according to a pre-established schedule.
I therefore encourage my colleagues to vote against clause 192 in its entirety.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion?
BQ-6 is disallowed.
(Clause 192 agreed to on division)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There are no amendments for clauses 193 to 234. Does anybody have any they want to pull up, or are we okay?
I'll give you a few moments to look at that. The agendas are being distributed now. They had to be reprinted.
(Clauses 193 to 234 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 235)
We're into division 11, dealing with support for families, including benefits and leaves. The amendment is NDP-16.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to welcome the witnesses joining us.
The amendment pertains to EI parental benefits. As the witnesses explained to the committee, the changes in Bill C-44 would make it possible for parents to extend the parental benefit period while receiving the same amount. If I'm not mistaken, they would have a choice between taking 12 months or 18 months, so rather than collecting 55% of their salary, which is already quite low in the NDP's view, they would collect just 33% over a longer period. In that sense, the measure isn't particularly helpful.
That said, in order to respect the bill's intent, I propose that the decision be revocable, and that's what amendment NDP-16 seeks to do.
It's fairly short, so I'll read you part of it:
(1.4) An election made under subsection (1.1) or 152.05(1.1) may be revoked by a major attachment claimant or an individual, as the case may be, and a new election made, in which case it is binding on the claimant, on the individual, on both claimants or on the claimant and the individual.
In that case, if the claimant's situation changed along the way and it was possible for them to return to work sooner, they could. They would still be entitled to receive the amount equivalent to 55% of their salary over 12 months. If, however, they could return to work, circumstances permitting, the period would be shortened.
I asked whether that scenario would be possible, and the answer wasn't no. Would it make things be a bit more complicated from an administrative standpoint? Of course.
Nevertheless, I don't think the administrative complexity is a major hurdle, given that the measure would give claimants greater flexibility. I think we can deal with a bit of complexity in order to do right by Canadians, whose situations can vary from claimant to claimant.
That is the purpose of amendment NDP-16. I hope my colleagues will support it. Even though the measure isn't perfect, it could help by allowing for a bit more flexibility.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.
I'll remind folks that there if there are questions on division 11, we have witnesses here from Employment and Social Development Canada.
Is there any further discussion on this point?
Mr. Ouellette.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
At first view, this measure seems pretty interesting because it gives a lot of flexibility to an individual claimant. For instance, if you had two parents, and they had the opportunity to decide who would like to take parental leave, and one says, “Well, I'll take it for two weeks now, because I have a contract that's coming up”, then the father can take a long period and they could switch again when those contracts change.
In Service Canada's opinion, what are some of the reasons you might give for this causing issues, and do you have any costing of this as well?
Andrew Brown Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
One of the things I would say was that the consultations were not only from the perspective of the administration of the program for us, but also of thinking about employers who need to be able to deal with the leave and potential top-ups to the EI benefits. If people were changing their selection of the duration of the leave and also the payment rate, whether the lower 33% or the higher 55%, it could result in incorrect payments to claimants, which we would subsequently have to recover, and in challenges for their employers dealing with both the leave and any top-ups they needed to provide to those employees.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
This is a very quick question. Are your computer systems, your software, able to handle something like that?
Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
They're certainly not able to handle that at present. There will be work under way to implement changes to the systems so they will be able to cope with what is proposed. This proposal here to allow parents flexibility to select the option up until the time that benefits are paid would align with the same approach that's been taken in Quebec with the Quebec parental insurance plan.