Bev Shipley

[Government Priorities, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this past Friday, I welcomed the President of the Treasury Board of Canada to my riding to do two pre-budget consultation sessions in Wallaceburg and in Strathroy in the riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

It is true that no government in the history of Canada has consulted more with Canadians on important issues than our Conservative government. Friday's meetings marked the 22nd time I have had the opportunity to consult with my constituents prior to a federal budget. Overwhelmingly, we heard time and again that constituents agreed with our government's direction to balance the budget, keep taxes low and continue to grow our economy.

I thank the chambers of commerce for coordinating these events and the constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who shared their views during these sessions and through my website. We wish them all a healthy and prosperous 2013.

[Resource Development, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, from charges of Dutch disease to repealing sections of the Clarity Act, the New Democrats seem determined to pit region against region across this great country. Conservatives, on the other hand, are united for the benefit of all.

It is estimated that the oil sands development will contribute $63 billion to the economy of Ontario. Last week, I along with colleagues from southwestern Ontario facilitated meetings between Alberta oil sands companies and manufacturers in our area. New contracts with Ontario businesses will be established through those productive meetings conducted by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and the In Situ Oil Sands Alliance. Alberta companies will benefit because they will have reliable made-in-Canada products.

The feedback is positive, Ontario manufacturers are thrilled and fellow Canadians from Alberta were impressed. On this side of the House, we call that “nation building”.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the comments from my friend from Malpeque.

I find his comments interesting because the only comments I heard this past weekend in my riding about this agreement were positive. People know Canada's position in moving forward. They actually know that in the trade agreements that we have done with many countries around the world, as well as the host of agreements we have coming forward, we are looking after the particular interests of Canadians.

I find his comments sort of interesting, quite honestly, because the Liberal Party, of which he is a member, never did much consultation when it was in government. When these agreements came in, the Liberals rubber-stamped them and they would go through. We have decided as a government that we cannot do that. The security and investment in Canada is much too important.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the reference goes back to the 1970s and 1980s.

As I mentioned in my report and in my speech, we are now in the 21st century and the demographics of our country have changed. Industry and manufacturing have changed. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, we did not have many state-owned enterprises that were interested in buying into Canada.

Over the last number of years, especially through this downturn in the economy, Canada has, through its economic action plan, been able to shine, show its strength and show its ability to function as an economic powerhouse around the world. We have now become a bit of a lightning rod for investment, not only from foreign investors but also for state-owned companies that want to have control or take some control.

As the Prime Minister has said, we are not now starting a new trend, we are actually stopping a trend of having state-owned companies take over the investments in our country, particularly in terms of the oil sands. We will also be tightening security in terms of other state-owned investments within Canada.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Don Valley West for detailing the historical basics, which are vital to understanding the important actions taken in terms of the Investment Canada Act the other evening.

The changes the government introduced have not just been tinkering, as some might suggest. We have taken a targeted approach and that is, quite honestly, the responsible way for us to remain effective in the face of evolving foreign investment trends, not only in this country but in others around the world. We know that Canada is a bit of a target because of its strong economic position over the last number of years that got us through the economic downturn.

In 2007, our government introduced guidelines on investments by state-owned enterprises. In 2009, we introduced national security provisions into the ICA, as well as amendments to increase the threshold for net benefit reviews and to remove sector-specific restrictions on investments. In the most recent federal budget, we introduced targeted measures intended to improve transparency and enhance enforcement.

In 2006, we recognized that investments by foreign state-owned enterprises represented a unique challenge to Canada as these investment opportunities seem to be growing, as I mentioned earlier. There is a concern that state-owned enterprises may not be commercially oriented, which could affect their operations in Canada. Guidelines on state-owned enterprises first enunciated in 2007 place significant focus on whether the Canadian businesses being acquired could operate with commercial orientation. Since that time, Canada has seen a significant increase in investment by state-owned enterprises.

As we see Canadian businesses and opportunities growing, state-owned enterprises are taking a large interest and that interest is growing. Hence, the need for the guidelines that were brought forward the other night. The Prime Minister did that on Friday evening. The revised guidelines will be applied to proposed transactions.

I will highlight the guidelines that have been mentioned time and again, and in fact, today in the House of Commons during question period. The Minister of Industry will consider among other factors: the degree of control or influence a state-owned enterprise would likely exert on the Canadian business that is being acquired; the degree of control or influence that a state-owned enterprise would likely exert on the industry in which the Canadian business operates; and the extent to which the foreign government in question is likely to exercise control or influence over the state-owned enterprise acquiring the Canadian business.

The national security provisions have also been raised a number of times. In 2008, the Competition Policy Review Panel, led by Mr. Wilson, in its final report called “Compete to Win”, recommended that the government introduce national security provisions in the ICA. It is amazing, quite honestly, that it was not until 2008 that Canada had a consideration for national security provisions within its ICA. In 2009, that recognition was given.

Under the national security review provisions, the Minister of Industry, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, is required to review all transactions, regardless of value, for national security concerns. In cases of concern, if it does show up at varying degrees of severity, a more in-depth review is undertaken and the minister may present the matter to cabinet for consideration. Cabinet is given broad powers to protect Canada's national security interests under the act, which are similar to protections in peer countries.

As we all know, the Prime Minister announced plans to permit the extension of national security reviews in the exceptional cases where it is necessary to do so. This will ensure that the government has the time it needs to thoroughly examine the complex cases that come before it. There is no more solemn duty of the government than protecting Canada's national security. In adding a national security review process, this government brought Canada's investment review regime into line with the practices of countries around the world.

We have heard a lot in the discussions in the House about net benefit review and those thresholds. The government also accepted another recommendation of the Competition Policy Review Panel. The government has taken steps to increase the net benefit review threshold from the existing $330 million to $1 billion. The purpose here is both to limit the role of the government in the private sector and to permit a focus on only the most significant transactions.

Additionally, the government accepted the panel's recommendation to shift the basis for calculating the review threshold from asset value to enterprise value. The government followed this recommendation in recognition of the fact that the business world has changed. Intellectual property, such as patents and trademarks, are of growing importance to business. Yet intellectual property is undervalued when considered on the basis of asset value. Enterprise value does a better job of more accurately capturing the value of a going concern business, including its intellectual property.

Members will recall that the Prime Minister announced that the increase in the net benefit review threshold will go forward for private businesses. However, and this is important, the higher threshold will not apply to transactions proposed by state-owned enterprises. Investments by state-owned enterprises will still be subject to a net benefit review at the lower threshold of $330 million. This will ensure these transactions are closely monitored.

When we look at transparency and enforcement, the Investment Canada Act contains strong confidentiality protections, which are necessary to ensure that investors willingly provide the sort of information that is required to conduct net benefit reviews. Under the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the ICA was amended. These are changes that will address the concerns of the opposition. The changes permit the disclosure of more information about the review process while still preserving commercial confidences. Specifically, the minister may disclose the fact he has sent preliminary notice to an investor that he is not satisfied that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. He may also explain his reasons for sending the notice, so long as it would not prejudice the Canadian business or the investor. At the same time, the ICA was amended to assist the government in obtaining investor compliance with undertakings.

In conclusion, our government has demonstrated over and over again that it needs to act and has acted to ensure that Canada's investment regime protects Canada's interests and is relevant to the global economic reality, which is a moving target. The Prime Minister's announcement of changes to the foreign investment review framework on Friday night were welcomed, not only by our caucus but by people around the world.

[International Trade, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government's economic action plan has made Canada a leader during troubled economic times.

Today, Canada has the lowest debt burden and the strongest job creation record in the G7. Since July 2009, over 880,000 net new jobs have been created.

One key to this success is our government's ambitious pro-trade plan, which includes negotiations toward a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union, an agreement that will boost bilateral trade by about 20%. That is like a $1,000 increase to the average Canadian family's annual income or 80,000 new jobs for Canadian workers, similar to the 800,000 employed in the manufacturing sector in my home province of Ontario. Eliminating European tariffs on Canadian exports will create jobs and opportunities for those hardworking Ontarians and their families.

It is truly an honour to be part of a government that is focused on the priority of Canadians.

[Labour, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a delegation of six CUPW big union bosses departed for the World Social Forum Free Palestine conference. Where? Rio de Janeiro. Using what? Public funds. This radical political conference is dedicated to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish homeland and promotes Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

We know union transparency is needed. Could the minister explain to the House what the government's actions need to be to get the public funds that the union took back to Canadian taxpayers.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition from constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, which basically speaks to the unregulated pipeline of child pornography and child exploitation.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact speedy legislation to change the legal terminology in section 163 of the Criminal Code from “child pornography” to “child sex abuse materials”, and to enact a mandatory minimum sentence to protect children, provide justice and deter pedophilia.

[Safe Food for Canadians Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask a couple of questions. I was on the committee when the Weatherill report was put together, in which 57 recommendations were made, and the government has now moved on them, as we know.

I am on the international trade committee right now. Just after the XL issue, the committee heard from delegates from Japan and some government people. We are working to build a trade agreement with Japan but, as we all know, Japan requires and demands premium products.

The XL Foods issue just occurred. How does that affect Canada's reputation on the world stage? Canadians recognize that we have some of the safest food in the world and that there is a process in place that ensures our food is safe. When I asked if this was a detriment to us in terms of moving forward, the answer was that it was not because we have a safe food program in place. It is a positive thing when talking about international trade.

I am wondering if the member would comment. Canada is looked at as a leader and the member is saying that it is not. She seems to be concerned that we do not have safe food in Canada.

[International Trade, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy, and even more so in these globally challenging economic times.

There is no larger economy in the world than the European Union's, with its more than 500 million consumers and a GDP of over $17 trillion. That is why our government is committed to an ambitious trade agreement with the EU. The benefits to Canadian workers and families of such an agreement are expected to be enormous, including a 20% boost in bilateral trade.

Let us put this into perspective. It is the equivalent of a $1,000 increase in the average Canadian family's income, or 80,000 new jobs for Canadian workers. That is almost 80% of the population of my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

No government in Canada's history has been more committed to creating jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families than our Conservative government.