Debates of Feb. 17th, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

When this matter is taken up again, the member will have 5 minutes and 44 seconds to complete his speech.

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

Foreign Investment

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the potential sale of Rona to American giant Lowe's has a lot of Quebeckers concerned.

The first issue is that while Rona has hundreds of small hardware stores across the province, Lowe's is an expert in big-box stores. Since Lowe's paid twice the price to get its hands on Rona, some are worried that it will shut down smaller stores to increase profits and finance its takeover bid. Today, hundreds of business owners are worried and need some reassurance.

The second issue is the head office. A head office is where all of the important decisions are made, which is very important when people want to retain some control over their own economy. Rona's head office employs 1,000 people in Boucherville. It generates another 1,000 jobs for all kinds of professionals, including accountants, lawyers, computer experts, and marketers. Two thousand good-quality jobs are directly dependent on Rona's head office. However, that is not all. Since Rona is a Quebec company, it buys from Quebec companies. Rona makes almost half of its purchases from Quebec suppliers and 84% of its purchases from Canadian suppliers.

According to the Quebec government, 50,000 jobs in Quebec, especially in manufacturing SMEs, depend on Rona. In Canada, that number is 90,000. These jobs existed because Rona was a Quebec company, decisions were made here, our business people had direct access to the company's buyer and, furthermore, they could speak to him in their own language. That is what the purchase by a large southern U.S. chain is jeopardizing.

Lowe's made many promises in order to get its hands on Rona. Lowe's promised to continue working with Quebec suppliers; it promised not to move the corporate headquarters; it promised not to get rid of all the small hardware stores. That was what it had to promise to get its hands on Rona. Such a well-established organization is worth some concessions. However, there is one thing that Lowe's did not promise, and that is to keep its promises. There is no such requirement at present. The Government of Quebec has no legislative or regulatory power to protect Quebeckers in this transaction. That power belongs to the federal government. It can approve or reject the sale and, more importantly, it can attach conditions. It can ensure that Lowe's keeps its promises and that tens of thousands of jobs will not be jeopardized.

The Competition Bureau needs to examine this transaction. In this regard, the Competition Act is clear. The process exists and its criteria are clear. There is no political interference. No one can meddle in the process. As for the Investment Canada Act, however, that is another story. Department officials will be the ones doing the analysis, and we will never see it. The minister can then do as he pleases. The question I asked him on February 4 was simple: “Will the minister commit to imposing conditions to protect our SMEs and protect economic activity in Quebec?”

My question was simple, but sometimes I think things get lost in translation. The proof is that he replied, “We will make sure that we follow the process.”

There is no process. Once department officials have examined the file, the minister can do as he pleases. The decision is up to the minister and to him alone. It is purely political.

I will therefore ask the question again. Will the minister commit to imposing conditions to protect our SMEs and protect economic activity in Quebec?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments by the hon. member for Joliette regarding the proposed purchase of Rona by Lowe's.

First, I would like to remind members that, much like trade, foreign investment is an important driver of globalization and is essential because it gives economies access to global value chains. That is why Canada is open to investments that create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

The Investment Canada Act is the framework that allows us to guarantee that foreign investments meet that objective. The act sets out that any significant investment, namely the acquisition of control of a Canadian business with assets that exceed the threshold under the act, must be reviewed to determine whether the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada.

The net benefit review threshold for private sector WTO investments is currently $600 million in enterprise value. The review threshold for WTO investors that are state-owned enterprises is $375 million in asset value.

In order to determine whether an investment project constitutes a net benefit for Canada, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development assesses the investor's plans and undertakings based on the six criteria set out in section 20 of the Investment Canada Act. They include:

(a) the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the effect on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts, components and services produced in Canada and on exports from Canada;

(b) the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada...

(e) the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the investment;

These criteria are clear indicators for investors, who often submit their plans based on those criteria.

The department determines the net benefit for Canada on a case-by-case basis. There is not one sole determining factor. Some criteria may be given more weight than others, depending on the nature of the investment and the circumstances surrounding it.

The process for assessing the net benefit is thorough and, if necessary, involves consultations with the provinces and territories affected as well as with the government departments or agencies with responsibilities in the sector involved in the transaction.

With regard to the proposed takeover of Rona by Lowe's, I would like to assure the House that the minister will thoroughly and carefully review the proposal submitted by Lowe's in accordance with the procedure set out in the legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, one would swear that the member got Kafka to write his notes. Unless there was a translation error, it seem as though the government is pretending not to understand.

Since Quebec is merely a province, Canada controls foreign investments within our territory. I realize that Rona is a Quebec company and the rest of Canada could not care less about it, or so it seems, but at least Canada could pretend to show some concern for Quebec, even just a little, as a common courtesy.

While I am talking about 50,000 jobs, the member is talking about the process and quoting the act. We can read the act; we know it well. What we do not know is the minister's intentions. Rona shareholders, who have to decide whether to sell the company, also do not know his intentions.

Even the Quebec government, which has asked the minister to protect jobs, does not know the minister's intentions or the criteria involved in his decision, which is purely arbitrary, I would remind hon. members. The process he talked about is purely political, and the minister can do as he pleases.

I will ask my question for the third time, and I hope the third time is the charm. Will the minister commit to imposing conditions to protect our SMEs and protect economic activity in Quebec?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am new here in the House of Commons. I do not know if my colleague is in a similar position, but I do know that he is sitting next to the dean of the House of Commons, the most experienced man in the House.

I am sure that his colleague can explain to him that the Investment Canada Act states that the process is not political; it is independent of the government. The evaluation is conducted independently. That is important. We have to have a group that can evaluate the process to determine if there is a net benefit to Canada.

That is why there is no need for me to provide reassurances because our government can certainly ensure that there will be a process. The law prevails, and the bureau will review the situation.

The Environment

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my two questions arise out of the government's climate change agenda.

On January 29, the environment minister met here in Ottawa with her counterparts from across the country and announced very little. She simply announced that work was ongoing to try to establish a pan-Canadian framework to address Canada's climate change challenges.

In conjunction with that announcement, she also made a bold statement that it was the first time that environment ministers from across Canada had gathered together for over 10 years. We went back and checked the record and that was not quite true. On the minister's own website, in fact the website of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, there is a press release dated June 23, 2015, in which the ministers confirmed that they met in Winnipeg in June of last year to discuss the specific issue of climate change.

First, would the parliamentary secretary correct the erroneous record that was established by the environment minister?

My second point goes to the root of the transparency the Prime Minister talked about during the election. In the lead up to the Paris climate change conference and shortly after he was sworn into office, the Prime Minister dropped a bombshell on Canadians. He said that he would be paying over $2.65 billion to address climate change, not in Canada, but in foreign countries. He made that announcement not in Canada but in Malta of all places.

Canadians fully expect that before the present government spends money abroad on climate change initiatives, it should come forward with a plan, a pan-Canadian framework, to address climate change. They also expect the first investments to be made in Canada to address that challenge, not spent around the world.

It gets worse.

We are now finding out in dribs and drabs that the $2.65 billion the Prime Minister promised is to be paid over a five-year period. In the final year of that period, $800 million will be paid to foreign agencies to address climate change issues in other countries.

Canadians were not told that the expectation was that Canada would continue to make these payments beyond the five years, going into the billions of dollars. Even worse, this program is to be made permanent. In other words, Canadians are committing under the green climate fund and under the commitment by the Prime Minister to make these payments in perpetuity.

Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that the meeting that the minister had with her counterparts this past January was not the first time that ministers of the environment have met to discuss climate change in over 10 years?

Second, could the parliamentary secretary confirm that this five-year plan to pay $2.65 billion to foreign countries to address climate change is going to become a permanent annual program for payments all around the world to address this issue?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for his questions and for this opportunity to speak about this government's transparent, substantive, and collaborative plan to meet our national and international commitments to address the critical issue of climate change.

Climate change is one of the pressing issues of our time, and it is also one of the greatest opportunities. Effectively meeting this challenge will require leadership from federal, provincial, territorial governments, as well as municipalities and indigenous organizations.

Canadians voted for a government that said it was serious about addressing climate change. They know, as we do, that delaying action on climate change is as costly as it is short-sighted.

Our government's strategy regarding climate change involves establishing national emissions reduction targets while providing flexibility for the provinces and territories to design policies that meet these commitments. Each province and territory is already taking important steps, steps that were taken solely at the provincial level because of a decade of Conservative inaction at the federal level.

When the minister spoke with respect to the meeting with territorial and provincial counterparts, she was effectively stating that this is a government for the first time that was intent on actually pursuing climate change in an effective way.

Our government's strategy also includes robust international engagement. Only a few short weeks after our government was sworn in, we played an important role in the historic Paris negotiations. In Paris, we brought together indigenous leaders, provincial and municipal representatives, industry, and youth, all to be part of establishing our commitment to the global fight against climate change. That includes working with developing nations to address their development challenges and mitigating greenhouse gas impacts as we work toward domestic reductions. In that context, the Prime Minister's commitment to the next five years was made.

We in this government are proud of the critical role that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change played on behalf of Canadians in the achievement of the Paris agreement.

As the hon. member noted, in late January, the minister met with her provincial and territorial counterparts. The meeting was an important step in the development of a pan-Canadian plan for addressing climate change, a plan that will be transparent and representative of all Canadians. At the meeting, ministers discussed their views on some of the key issues and opportunities that must be addressed under an effective pan-Canadian framework. Ministers also looked at the greenhouse gas projections for Canada for 2020 and 2030. With a decade of inaction behind us, it is very clear that significantly more must be done if we are to meet our international commitments.

At this meeting, environment ministers recognized that the only way to ensure a transition to a clean growth economy and to a cleaner, more sustainable future, is for all levels of government to work together, something once again that the previous government failed to understand.

At the meeting of federal and provincial environment ministers, Canada's Minister of Environment and Climate Change worked with her colleagues to frame the work to be done going forward and to lay the groundwork for convening a first ministers meeting within 90 days of the Paris climate change conference. This was a campaign platform commitment and is a key next step in the development of an effective pan-Canadian framework.

On March 3, the Prime Minister will join provincial premiers in Vancouver to discuss this subject. This meeting will focus on developing a pan-Canadian framework and the opportunities Canada has to become a global leader in clean growth, and to deliver responsibly on our environmental and economic commitments.

Indeed, this government very clearly understands that to build prosperity in the 21st century, we must understand that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. For example, clean technology is one of the fastest growing sectors in the world. It will be a critical part of our approach to combatting climate change and will form a key part of our economic strategy. I know this industry well from a personal perspective. I spent the last 20 years as a CEO and senior executive in this industry.

Clean technology offers tremendous potential in growth, entrepreneurship, and innovation as we move on a global basis towards a lower carbon economy. Our government's commitments to the development of a comprehensive strategy for the development and deployment of clean technology will not only contribute to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions, but will also be a significant driver of economic prosperity for decades to come.

Climate change is a very significant challenge, one that we must effectively address for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and our planet. It is something that will create enormous opportunities for us. Through the pan-Canadian approach, which prioritizes consultation and collaboration, we will effectively meet that challenge.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was all nice and good, but the parliamentary secretary did not answer either one of the questions I put to him.

I will ask again. Will he correct the record here that the previous government did have environment ministers from across Canada and our federal minister, Leona Aglukkaq, meet on June 23, 2015?

Second, could he confirm that this five-year $2.65 billion foreign climate change payment is actually only the first installment of ongoing commitments that the Government of Canada is making to support climate change initiatives outside of Canada?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think I actually effectively addressed both of the questions that were put by the hon. member.

The minister was speaking to the fact that this is the first government in the past decade that actually is serious about commitments with respect to climate change and is engaging the provinces in multilateral meetings to address this in a serious way.

With respect to the commitment that the Prime Minister made, he made a commitment over a five-year period. That is for a five-year period, and we will take it from there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 6:50 p.m.)