Debates of Dec. 4th, 2014

Takeover of Stelco

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion from my colleague regarding the acquisition of Stelco by U.S. Steel in 2007, under the Investment Canada Act, I rise today to speak to the importance of foreign investment to Canada's continued prosperity.

This motion implies that U.S. Steel's current situation is indicative of a flawed foreign investment policy. We disagree. Trade and investment, both into and out of Canada, provide the foundation for Canada's continued economic growth, wealth, and job creation. Foreign investors have recognized that Canada is open for business under the Conservative government and have been attracted to the opportunities provided by a strong, dynamic Canadian economy.

We have created a transparent, stable, and predictable economic climate that benefits both Canadian business and foreign investment. Our government is committed to creating the market conditions that will continue to attract international capital, technology, and innovative ways of doing business.

The benefits of foreign investment are well recognized. First and foremost, foreign investment creates high-paying jobs for Canadians that contribute to our overall economic productivity.

Second, foreign investment provides new capital, which Canadian firms need to fuel growth and make the investments needed to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy. This includes introducing new technologies and innovative business practices to Canadian enterprises, which, as a result, can prove crucial to the expansion and development of important sectors of the Canadian economy. This is especially true for Canada's abundant natural resources sector and our domestic manufacturing base.

Third, foreign investment exposes Canadian businesses to the knowledge, capabilities, and management expertise of world-leading businesses. Such knowledge transfers can increase the productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness of Canadian firms. At the same time, Canadians benefit from lower prices that may result from these efficiencies and gain greater domestic access to innovative products and services.

Finally, foreign investment also provides Canadian businesses with valuable access to new markets. Canada is, and always has been, a trading nation, from our earliest days as a country. Foreign investment can play a valuable role in integrating Canadian firms into global value chains. In addition to expanding the capabilities of Canadian business here at home, foreign investment can provide an unparalleled opportunity to tap into the world's fastest growing economies and secure these markets for Canadian exports.

To reap the benefits of foreign investment, Canada must maintain the economic conditions necessary to attract foreign investment in the first place and foster a welcoming environment for such investments to thrive.

I would note that Canada's economic performance under our government has been very strong compared to our peer countries in the aftermath of the economic downturn of 2008. Since that time, Canada has achieved one of the best job creation rates and economic growth rates in the G7. This achievement is remarkable, given that it took place against the backdrop of global economic uncertainty and a slowdown in exports stemming from economic problems experienced by our key trading partners. Despite these economic headwinds, recent studies by the Bank of Canada and the International Monetary Fund note that Canada is poised to continue to be among the lead G7 countries in economic growth in the years ahead.

Canada's strong economic performance is due in large part to our government's commitment to economic fundamentals. In a global marketplace, with strong competition for foreign investment, it is crucial that Canada provide an economic climate in which Canadian and international companies can succeed and thrive. Our government has worked hard to create the necessary conditions for Canadian businesses and workers to succeed.

We have kept taxes low for Canadians and Canadian businesses to support job creation, growth, and investment in all sectors of the economy. Our government's economic action plan has resulted in significant investments to promote innovation and foster research and development. It has measures to ensure that Canadians are equipped with the skills and training they need to succeed in a globalized economy.

Businesses operating in Canada also benefit from the advantages provided by our sound financial institutions, our highly skilled labour force, and our world-leading capabilities in science and technology.

In addition to these measures, our government, through its trade agenda, is committed to open borders and free trade. History has shown that trade is the best way to create jobs and growth and boost our standard of living.

Our government has worked tirelessly to open new markets, increase exports of Canadian goods and services to global markets, and provide new and diverse opportunities for Canadian companies. Toward this end, since 2006, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with 38 countries and is pursuing trade agreements with many more, including large markets such as India and Japan.

The government will continue to bring the benefits of foreign investment to Canada by maintaining favourable economic conditions. At the same time, this government recognizes that not every foreign investment will be of benefit to Canada. The foreign investment review regime under the Investment Canada Act is a key part of Canada's economic framework. It promotes investment and ensures that Canadians reap the benefit of those investments.

Under the ICA regime, Canadian businesses can capitalize on international trade opportunities, tap into deeper pools of global capital, and obtain greater access to the resources and markets they need to expand, innovate, and create. Ultimately, foreign investment makes Canadian firms and workers more competitive in the global economy.

The foreign investments that have been reviewed and approved under the ICA have boosted Canada's productivity, created jobs, and enhanced research and development. They have also demonstrated to the world that Canada is open for business.

Our government has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that Canadian businesses can compete in both domestic and international markets. In order to prosper, create jobs, and maintain a high standard of living for Canadians, it is important to adopt policies that encourage trade and investment. Failure to do so will harm our ability to compete worldwide and damage our prospects for economic growth and future prosperity.

Foreign investment is an important component of Canada's economic success in the present day and in the future. Our government, through its economic policies, its trade agenda, and the foreign investment review regime under the ICA, has acted to ensure that foreign investment will contribute to the economic well-being of all Canadians.

Under our government's policies, I am confident that Canada will continue to attract world-class companies with high-paying jobs, leading to the continued success, economic growth, and prosperity of our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member of Parliament for Sydney—Victoria and I raised a series of questions on the inadequacy of the government's response to protect Canadian producers as a result of the loss of our access to the United States Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act. For those who do not understand the background on this issue, let me explain what happened.

Until now, Canadian exporters have had the same rates as American suppliers to recover payments quickly and efficiently if a buyer refuses to pay or declares bankruptcy with unpaid bills. That seriously impacts producers, as we know. When farmers grow products, process them and send them into a business, they expect to be paid. In fact, the consequences of non-payment of those bills could force a single producer or supplier out of business.

Canadian exporters have had special access to the United States Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act, or PACA, as it is best known by, and that access has been revoked. The fact is that our trade in fresh produce with the United States is worth about $1.6 billion. There are a lot of dollars at risk and a lot of risk to Canadian producers in the supply chain.

The Canadian government knew for a considerable time the protection was at risk because the United States had been warning of the loss of that special privilege. However, the Conservative government failed to be prepared when it happened and, as a result, both Canadian producers and consumers could be seriously affected.

There are 140,000 Canadians employed in the fresh fruit and vegetable industry and without the protection of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, the risk of someone not paying his or her bills for produce that has already gone to market would be multiplied many fold.

I know the parliamentary secretary will respond that consultations are ongoing and, yes, I recognize that. However, the problem is that consultations are a two-way street and government has to listen to what industry and producers are saying. The proposal from the government is not acceptable to producers and they have made that clear.

As I said in my question, that proposal from the government will not work and the industry has told that to the government. The facts are that Canadian fruit and vegetable sellers have had long-standing protection under the United States law, and they no longer have that protection as of October 1. As a result, jobs and Canadian farmers are at serious risk. Industry has made it clear that it needs a Canadian-made perishable commodities act, and that is the only option to protect produce suppliers. Why not implement that viable option?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to comments by the hon. member for Malpeque on payment protection for Canadian fresh produce sellers in the United States and to set the record straight on our government's action to the fresh produce industry in Canada.

The hon. member, as usual, is clearly mistaken in saying that Canadian fruit and vegetable sellers no longer have protection under the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or PACA. Canadian fresh produce sellers will still be able to access PACA benefits. PACA officials confirm that most Canadian seller disputes with U.S. buyers are settled informally and that it is only during the formal complaints process that a Canadian seller would need to post a bond.

Moreover, U.S. legislation requires all U.S. buyers to honour their financial obligations to all foreign and domestic sellers of fresh produce. Accordingly, Canadian fresh produce sellers will be treated fairly and on equal footing with all other exporters of fresh produce to the U.S.

The recent action by the U.S. does not impact Canadian buyers of U.S. fresh produce. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts in terms of availability and cost of fresh produce to Canadian consumers or to jobs in Canada. Our government and the United States department of agriculture committed to establish comparable approaches to protecting Canadian and U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable growers from buyers that defaulted on their payment obligations. We did not commit to identical outcomes or to implement the U.S. law, as the member has suggested.

Surely the Liberal member recognizes that the Government of Canada must work within its constitutional, political and legislative framework in developing a made-in-Canada solution for Canadian produce sellers. The implementation of a single dispute resolution body would enhance the business environment in Canada by providing greater stability through a single unified set of rules governing instances of slow, partial and/or no-pay situations. This would address the majority of non-payment issues and would reduce the risk of fraudulent practices, making Canada an importer of choice.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, but clearly from the remarks, the government, or whoever is talking to the industry, is certainly talking to different players in the industry than we are. The story the member purports to tell on behalf of the government is not what we are hearing from industry.

Industry believes it needs a perishable commodities act that would do the same as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act in the U.S. did. What is on the table, as industry tell us clearly, will not do what was previously in place. This is what industry is asking for.

However, what we see in the exchange here is that the government seems to go by its own agenda and does not really listen to producers. I am saying that the government should listen to what producers are saying and help them out.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government does understand the importance of Canada's fresh produce industry and its contribution to the economy. On this side of the House, we listen to farmers and deliver on our promises. That is why, as part of Canada's economic action plan, we introduced clear legislation to provide a single dispute resolution body that would help reduce issues of non-payment faced by the fresh produce industry.

We will continue to expand markets for our fresh fruit and vegetable growers beyond the U.S. and into new markets such as Europe and Asia. Our government is committed to supporting Canadian producers and exporters, and we will continue to review this issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:38 p.m.)