Industry Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Both Inco and Falconbridge operations are in my riding. As you can imagine, the community is very concerned about this. The position I'm taking on their behalf is that the Inco offer for Falconbridge was made October 11 and it took a long time to get approvals. They don't have approvals yet. To the community, it seemed like an unfair, unlevel playing field if we would rush the study of the Xstrata offer for Inco, whereas it took six months to get a response from the United States and Europe and it took some time to get the Canadian decision.

If the same amount of time was dedicated to the new offer, we couldn't argue the uneven playing field. But if it would go faster, we would see it as an unfair process, because there's another element to this. There's another company that is trying to buy Inco on the condition that they drop the Falconbridge offer. So this is becoming cumbersome, and the corporate games that are played are beyond my comprehension. I suppose it's beyond their own comprehension. But it seems to me there's an attempt here to circumvent normal process, and the way to assure a fair and level playing field is to assure that the first offer, which has been there since October 11, is dealt with.

So on behalf of my communities and all the people affected...there is an effect when there is a change of ownership. We saw it when Falconbridge was purchased by Noranda. It became an impersonal employer, and that's problematic when you're more or less a one-industry town and the employer becomes an impersonal employer, as opposed to a company like Inco, where most of the senior management have raised their families there, and in addition to making money for their shareholders, they have a vested interest in our community.

So we are very concerned, and we ask that the same time be allowed for this offer as was allowed for the original Inco-Falconbridge friendly takeover.

Thank you very much for allowing me to say that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for being with us here today. I appreciate that.

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

We will be much less virulent today than on Tuesday. After having read and studied the text, I think that we will be able to agree on the main motion. We will see what kinds of amendments will be proposed and then we will make a decision. However, as far as the main motion is concerned, we support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Would it be appropriate if I read out the wording that I would be proposing?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think we'd prefer that you get general reaction to the main motion, and then I propose that we deal with Mr. Masse's amendment and then with your amendment.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay, because in general, we support the principles that everybody is outlining here. As I said, the wording is a bit problematic, that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Maybe you could just identify, then, the wording that you have concerns about.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

We're talking about the one by Mr. Holland:

That the Minister of Industry delay closing the Investment Canada review of the Xstrata-Falconbridge merger proposal....

So this is the one that's on the table. “Delay” infers that the minister take action that's not within the Investment Canada Act to do. So I'd like to see if there is better wording that we could put forward so he can act within the Canada Investment Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Mr. Carrie, perhaps you or one of the researchers can outline the Investment Canada Act in terms of that. You're talking about the 45-day period and the 30-day period.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

By insinuating that the Minister of Industry delay...that's something that isn't appropriate for him to do, basically.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Mr. Fontana.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, let me read the overview of the Investment Canada Act, because I think it clearly points out what the minister can and can't do. It says here, and I'm sure the researcher would have this, that the minister has 45 days from the date of receipt by Investment Canada of the completed application to decide whether the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. This 45-day period may be unilaterally, by the minister, extended for a further 30 days, or with the agreement of the applicant for such longer period as is agreed upon between the applicant and the minister. It says, though, that if no notice is sent to the applicant within 45 days, or a longer period, the investment is deemed to be approved.

I think the nature of the motion, where Colin is coming from, is whether or not one uses the word “delay”, which I think is probably the most operative word, because we want him, the minister, to essentially avail himself of the options available under Investment Canada to go at least to the 75 days as opposed to the 45 days, which he now has. I think the committee would be giving some sort of guidance to the minister that we believe that 45 days is not appropriate, that he take at least the 75 days, all for the reasons that would be expressed, including the reasons that Mr. Bonin had suggested.

I think the motion put forward is not contrary to what the Investment Act says. I think it should be seen in the light that the committee has given some sort of guidance to the minister to avail himself of the full 75 days with regard to dealing with this particular application so that a true net benefit to Canada, in all the sense of the word, can be evaluated.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. That's very helpful in reading from the exact act so we all know exactly what we're talking about.

Are there any other members who want to intervene on this general topic?

Mr. Masse, do you want to further speak to your amendment? Let me be sure I have it correct. After “proposal”, it would read “That the Committee report the motion to the House”.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All that is, is that we take the motion that we've had here today and we present it back in the House of Commons. That's all we do. We basically express the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We present the motion back.

Are there any comments with respect to the amendment?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want to move your amendment, Mr. Carrie?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

What I'd like to move is the amendment:

That the Minister of Industry consider all options available under the Investment Canada Act to ensure a thorough review of the proposed acquisition by Xstrata of Falconbridge, and that the Minister consider the timing of decisions on the proposed merger of Inco and Falconbridge by regulatory bodies in other jurisdictions.

In other words, that would allow him to consider, as you mention, the European situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you have copies to distribute, Mr. Carrie? It's okay if you don't.

Mr. Masse, did you want to qualify something?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

No. It's just that it sounds like a substantial change to the main motion, and there's no copy in front of me.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, I have--

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Of course, we would also like to see it in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Holland and then Mr. Fontana.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I just had an opportunity to see this a short while ago, when Mr. Carrie was kind enough to present it to me.

I guess there are two issues for me. I think, as Mr. Fontana stated, it certainly is within the responsibilities or the powers of the minister to be able to delay the application for any reasons the minister deemed fit to take it to the 75-day timeframe. The word “delay”, then, doesn't cause me any angst or consternation.

The problem I have with the amendment is that it says the minister should consider it, but he doesn't say why and it doesn't really have the committee taking a position with respect to the committee feeling that this is a desirable outcome. It just says think about it, and if you have time to think about it, consider it.

I think what we're looking for, or what I was looking for in moving the motion, was to have a position from the committee that we had an expressed desire for an outcome for this to be extended. I think the main motion expresses that, and I think Mr. Fontana has been able to clarify the fact that it does in fact adhere to the powers of the minister. Therefore, I think it makes sense to proceed with the motion as it stands now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Fontana, and then I have Mr. Masse.