Mike Lake

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that last exchange was interesting to listen to. We heard the NDP member talk about how the former Liberal government rubber-stamped every foreign investment transaction that came before it in its 13 very long years in office. On the other extreme end of the spectrum, we have the NDP members who oppose every foreign investment transaction that is ever discussed in the House.

We have these two extremes represented within the opposition parties and then we have the government's position that it will evaluate each and every proposed transaction according to the criteria laid out in the Investment Canada Act to ensure that it is to the net benefit of Canadians.

We have approved some transactions. We have had a few transactions that have not been approved because they were deemed not to be to the net benefit of Canadians. However, the consistent thing this government has always done is evaluate according to the criteria that is laid out very clearly in section 20 of the Investment Canada Act.

It was also interesting to hear the hon. member talk about the industry committee. I have sat on the industry committee since 2008. Now that hon. member was not in the House during the previous Parliament but if he had been maybe he would have known that at that time in committee the government side was outnumbered by the opposition side. We would often see circumstances where the government would propose to move in a certain direction but the NDP and Liberal members would huddle together with members of the Bloc and then decide on a joint strategy as they moved forward. That was the case as we went through our industry committee hearings prior to the election of 2011.

Members might remember that the industry minister at the time had asked the committee to study the Investment Canada Act. The Conservative members moved that but the opposition parties banded together to block it. They decided that they would rather study something that we had already studied for hours and hours, the census, at a time when the census was already rolling out and it was too late to actually do anything about it. However, they decided that was more important to study, as we approached a potential election, than the Investment Canada Act at the time. The Conservative side lost that vote because we did not have the number of members we needed to win it. Those are the facts of what actually happened.

I will now like to focus on the net benefit criteria.

Time and again we hear members of the New Democratic Party stand up and say that there is absolutely no clear criteria to determine net benefit. Well, Canadians can Google the Investment Canada Act.

Interestingly, it is called the Investment Canada Act, but when NDP members put forward a press release about this issue they referred to it as the Canadian investment act. They were in such a hurry to get out there and play the political games on this issue that they could not even get the name of the act right.

In section 20 of the Investment Canada Act, we lay out clearly the criteria for net benefit. It says right here that in determining whether an investment is of net benefit the minister will consider the following factors:

(a) the effect...on the level...of economic activity in Canada...on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts...and services produced in Canada and on exports from Canada;

That is the first of six factors. It continues with:

(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...;

(c) the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada;

(d) the effect of the investment on competition within any industry...in Canada;

e) the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies...;

(f) the contribution of the investment to Canada’s ability to compete in world markets.

When opposition members stand up and say that there is no criteria for which to evaluate net benefit to Canadians, that is simply false. It is clearly enumerated in section 20 of the Investment Canada Act.

We have also heard opposition members complain about the national security provisions, about transparency and about all sorts of things. The fact is that the government did bring forward changes to the Investment Canada Act to include national security measures through a national security provision. However, when we did that, members of the opposition parties, the NDP in particular, opposed that measure. When we introduced measures to increase transparency and flexibility within the act, the opposition parties consistently opposed those measures every time.

It is somewhat hypocritical for those members to stand up now and complain that the government is not doing enough to change it when the government has taken steps to improve the act time and time again and the opposition parties have time and time again opposed those measures.

At the end of the day, what the debate is about is ideology. We have one extreme end of the spectrum represented by the Liberal Party where it would just rubber-stamp every investment that came before it, which it actually did when it was in power for 13 years. We have another party that simply opposes every foreign investment transaction that comes before it because that is its ideological position on foreign investment.

Our government has actually taken a balanced approach on the issue. We have taken an approach where the minister considers the net benefit to Canada as he considers every individual transaction. I believe that is what Canadians expect of their government and that is what this government will continue to do.

[Government Programs, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that the digital environment was very different when the community access program was launched over 17 years ago. Access to the Internet was limited and the government wanted to introduce to Canadians the benefits of participating in a knowledge-based economy. The program has successfully met that objective.

Today we are funding internships where youth will be given useful experience in information and communications technology to allow them to successfully transition into the workplace. For Canadians who have been using a CAP site to access government services, Service Canada offers single window access to a wide range of Government of Canada programs and services.

Canadians can access these through almost 600 points of service located across the country. Furthermore, the resources of Industry Canada's computers for schools program continue to be available to schools and qualified non-profit groups. The program collects, repairs and refurbishes donated surplus computers from government and private sector resources. It then distributes them free of charge to schools, public libraries and not-for-profit learning organizations.

Through economic action plan 2012, our government is looking ahead and taking major steps forward to build on the strong foundation we have laid since 2006.

[Government Programs, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Guelph for his question on the community access program. CAP was launched in 1995 when the Internet was in its infancy and only available to a small number of Canadians. Even then it was evident that it would be critical to Canada's future competitiveness. CAP was launched to make computers and the Internet accessible for many different communities that did not have access to home Internet.

It was designed to encourage Canadians to use computers, some for the very first time. In 1995, only about 10% of Canadians had Internet access and only 40% of them had a computer. I was in university at the time. I know many of the opposition members were in high school, some even in grade school and a few not even in school yet. However, the hon. member and I both remember pagers, typewriters and handwritten essays.

Today, most Canadians have Internet at home. In 2010, almost 80% of Canadians had access to the Internet at home. In fact, many Canadians have it on their tablets, smart phones, laptops and various other devices. They can also access Internet for free through local Internet hot spots like libraries and coffee shops.

Canadians are using the Internet in record numbers. According to some reports, we are world leaders in Internet use.

Many things have changed since 1995 and we must continuously review our programs to ensure they are efficient, effective and serving Canadians. The community access program was a good program in its time, but it has reached its objectives. That said, make no mistake, our government is committed to providing access to high speed Internet to more Canadians.

There continues to be a gap between rural and urban Canadians in terms of access to leading-edge broadband and this is unacceptable. That is why our government has worked to expand access to rural broadband and increase access to broadband Internet across the country.

Our economic action plan included an expansion of broadband to cover almost 220,000 Canadians who did not have access to high-speed Internet before. Our government has been clear. Rural Canadians deserve the same reliable access as urban Canadians.

In the recent spectrum auction, the Minister of Industry announced a requirement for companies that buy spectrum to deploy into all areas of their customer base, not just big cities. This will bring LTE or fourth generation mobile services to more Canadians across the entire country.

New auctions for both the 700 and 2,500 megahertz bands have been announced with the 700 megahertz auction to be held next year. The auction is designed to support competition and investment by capping how much spectrum each company can purchase. This will enable at least four companies in each area to secure spectrum.

By ensuring greater choice for Canadians, we see more competition and ultimately lower costs for Canadian families.

Just this year, the CRTC published reports that costs to Canadians for broadband Internet and wireless Internet were cheaper in Canada than in the U.S.

Our world is becoming smaller and more digital. We need to plan for tomorrow, today. Our government has taken actions to provide more Internet service to Canadians, to ensure more competition and to keep costs low.

We are ensuring Canadians have the tools they need to succeed in this new global digital world.

[Census, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to ideology, and again I will say that this government does not hold the ideology that people should be threatened with jail time because they do not want to tell the government what their religion is.

We do not believe that people should be threatened with jail time because they do not want to say how many hours of housework they did or how much time they spent with their kids.

As I said before, Statistics Canada is continuing its data quality assessment of the data from the national household survey and will make the results available as this work is completed.

[Privacy, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has a grandmother or grandfather who shared information about eight-track tapes with her. I could tell her a thing or two about LPs, which is something from my time.

Canadians have given our government a strong mandate to stay focused on what matters, creating jobs and economic growth. Ensuring trust and confidence through the protection of personal information is essential to the growth of the digital economy. Our government will continue to help protect consumers and businesses from misuse of their personal information. We urge the opposition to join us in that.

[Privacy, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this government introduced Bill C-12, which is an important tool for ensuring a stronger digital economy in Canada. We look forward to the oppositions' support in moving that forward.

[Census, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question.

The member was not in the House when we had this debate in the last Parliament as he had not been elected yet. However, if he had been here he would remember that we said that we would not threaten Canadians with jail time because they did not want to tell the government what their religion was. We also said that we would not threaten them with jail time because they did not want to tell the government how many bedrooms they had in their house or how many hours of housework they did.

The government will never do that. Maybe the opposition would but this government would not.

[Census, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has posted the final response rates from the 2011 national household survey at the national, provincial, territorial and local levels. The final response rate for the national household survey was 78.3% nationally. This is comparable to response rates from other voluntary surveys conducted by Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada is continuing its data quality assessment of the data from the national household survey and will make the results available as the work is completed. The first results from the national household survey will be available in May 2013.

[Foreign Investment, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, again, the government will always act in the best interests of Canadians. This transaction will be scrutinized very closely.

The Investment Canada Act process has provisions to protect national security. I remind the hon. member that when we introduced the national security provisions in section 25 in 2009, the NDP voted against them.

[Foreign Investment, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government will always act in the best interests of Canadians. This transaction will be scrutinized very closely. If the hon. member wants to check out section 20 of the Investment Canada Act, she can do so. It clearly enumerates the six criteria for net benefit and that will be the criteria used to evaluate any decision.