House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 56% of the vote.
Ethics June 1st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, regarding the preamble to the member's question, of course nothing could be further from the truth. The minister was very clear yesterday that there was no financial interest, no conflict.
Let me talk about something that is actually relevant to Canadians. Since last July, our economic action plan has resulted in 285,000 new jobs and an astonishing 6.1% economic growth rate in the first quarter of this year.
Business of Supply May 27th, 2010
Mr. Chair, it is well understood that the Canadian Forces have a significant role to play in exercising control over and defending Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. New economic, recreational and other opportunities are emerging across the region. While these opportunities are exciting, they also bring new challenges. The Canadian Forces must therefore be prepared to respond to safety and security challenges in Canada's vast Arctic territory.
As stated in the Canada first defence strategy:
As activity in northern lands and waters accelerates, the military will play an increasingly vital role in demonstrating a visible Canadian presence in this potentially resourcerich region, and in helping other government agencies such as the Coast Guard respond to any threats that may arise.
I understand a number of Canadian Forces firsts were recently achieved during Operation Nunalivut, one of the Canadian Forces annual Arctic sovereignty operations, the first ever landing of a CC-177 Globemaster at Canadian Forces Station Alert and concurrent training between the Arctic Response Company Group and the Canadian Rangers, who conducted their patrols further north than ever before.
Could the minister, as a first-hand witness, provide the committee with an overview of this highly successful operation?
Mr. Speaker, the member asked in the first part and in the second part what the government has done for the workers at Vale. We have created an economic climate in this country that has resulted in the net job creation of 285,000 new jobs. That has made Canada the envy of the industrialized world.
That means that, once the company and the union are able to work together and once they have been able to resolve this dispute, the company will be operating in the strongest economic climate in the entire world. That, of course, will not only be to the benefit of the company but it will be to the great benefit of the workers at Vale as well.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating that foreign investment plays a very important role in the Canadian economy. Foreign investors bring capital, knowledge, capabilities, technology, and other resources which can increase the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian firms. Their investments help businesses to expand and create jobs for Canadians.
It is important to note that investment flows both into and out of Canada. In the past several years Canadian firms have invested more abroad than foreign firms have invested in Canada. According to Stats Canada, foreign investments into Canada reached $549 billion in 2009, while Canadian investments abroad reached $593 billion.
In order to ensure that Canadian firms have access to investment opportunities abroad, it is important for Canada to maintain an investment climate which encourages the free flow of investment in both directions. Recognizing the importance of investment flows into the country, Canada has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment while protecting its interests. This includes the Investment Canada Act, which provides the Minister of Industry with the power to review significant foreign investment proposals.
The review threshold for WTO members is currently $299 million in book value of the assets of the Canadian business. Where a proposed investment is subject to review under the act, the investor cannot implement the investment without the approval of the minister responsible for the act.
The Minister of Industry approves an application only where he is satisfied that the transaction is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. In making his determination, the minister must consider the factors listed in section 20 of the act.
These factors include: the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business; the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies; and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.
As a part of the review process, the investment review division of Industry Canada consults with federal government departments with policy responsibility for the industrial sector involved, with the Competition Bureau, and with all provinces in which the Canadian business has substantial activities or assets.
In October 2006, the Minister of Industry at the time approved Vale's application for review of its acquisition of Inco Limited because he was satisfied that the investment was likely to be of net benefit to Canada.
The original question put forward by the member asks whether the government will stand up and tell Vale to get back to the table, negotiate in good faith, and demonstrate that Vale's investment truly represents a net benefit to Canada.
The government is surely disappointed at the lack of progress in resolving this strike at Vale; however, as has been mentioned several times in this House and as the hon. member mentioned himself, the strike is a labour dispute between Vale and its union. Labour relations are governed by a well-established legislative framework which Vale and the union must respect.
The provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador are responsible for the administration of the legislation which governs labour relations in their respective provinces.
I want to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address my colleagues in this House. We encourage both sides to sit down together and negotiate a settlement.
Digital Economy May 26th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the Minister of Industry announced the tabling of two bills to strengthen Canadians' safety and privacy online.
Both the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act and the fighting internet and wireless spam act will work to fortify the ability of Canadians to work effectively online. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce welcomed the bills, saying they would help reduce “unwanted and unsolicited emails that clog up email systems, cost productivity, violate privacy, and often promote fraud”.
This government continues to work to ensure that Canada is a world leader in the digital economy.
Government Programs May 26th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, of course, the numbers presented in the article that the member refers to are incorrect and skewed.
In fact, a significant investment was made in the Canadian Tourism Commission for a campaign leveraging Canada's hosting of world-class events like the G8, the G20 and the Olympic events. The work of the Canadian Tourism Commission has tremendous benefits, of course, in all parts of this country for all Canadians.
Foreign Investment May 26th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, under the Investment Canada Act, a foreign investment is only approved when the Minister of Industry is satisfied it will provide a net benefit to Canada. Among other things, considerations include ensuring economic activity in Canada and protecting the jobs of Canadians.
Because of the actions of this government, we have seen a net gain of 285,000 new jobs in Canada over the past year. The NDP voted against every one of those jobs.
Digital Economy May 25th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today we indeed tabled two bills to promote Canada's digital economy: the fighting wireless and Internet spam act, and the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.
Our goal is to ensure confidence in online commerce by addressing the privacy and personal security concerns that consumers associate with spam and related online threats that can deter consumers from participating in the online marketplace.
We are working to make Canada a leader in both fields by providing a more secure online environment for both consumers and businesses.
Competition Act (Inquiry into Industry Sector) May 12th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-452.
The bill would give Canada's Commissioner of Competition the power to launch broad based studies of market conditions in entire industry sectors¸
Competition in our economy is of enormous importance to both consumers and their employers. The Government of Canada has recognized that fact by taking significant steps over the past two years to modernize Canada's competition regime and to align it more closely with the competition laws of our country's major trading partners.
It is important to ensure that consumers and legitimate businesses do not fall prey to illegal activity and that if they do they have the confidence that the law will be enforced effectively and that penalties are tough enough to deter future illegal activity.
Important amendments to the Competition Act became law on March 13, 2009. The amendments will help to further increase the predictability, efficiency and effectiveness of the enforcement and administration of the act for businesses and for the Competition Bureau. In turn, this will better protect all Canadians from the harm caused by anti-competitive conduct.
These amendments came about through key recommendations made by the Competition Policy Review Panel which was formed in July 2007 with a mandate to review Canada's competition and foreign investment policies and to provide recommendations to the federal government on how to make Canada more globally competitive.
The panel spent a year reviewing Canada's competition and investment policies. Its report, “Compete to Win”, concluded that in order to prosper, Canada must adopt a more globally competitive mindset. The report concluded that intensifying competition will build a stronger economy, better products at lower prices, more jobs and higher earnings, stronger firms and greater prosperity.
The recommendations made by the panel formed a key part of Canada's economic action plan and provided the basis for the amendments to the Competition Act that were introduced in budget 2009 and passed as part of Bill C-10.
The main elements of the amendments were as follows: creating a more effective mechanism for the criminal prosecution of the most egregious forms of cartel agreements between or among competitors and introducing a non-criminal review process for other forms of competitor collaborations; allowing the Competition Tribunal to award administrative monetary penalties against companies that have abused a dominant position in the marketplace; introducing a two-stage merger review process to allow for a more efficient and effective review of proposed merger transactions; increasing penalties for deceptive marketing practices; expressly empowering the courts to award restitution to victims of false or misleading representations; and finally, repealing criminal sanctions for certain pricing practices to ensure that creative pro-competitive initiatives are encouraged.
These amendments ensure that we have the tools to better protect consumers and businesses from the most flagrant types of anti-competitive conduct, while being ever mindful of the importance of not discouraging pro-competitive behaviour in the market.
I raise the government's actions in this regard because of their importance with regard to the issue we are considering today. As I have described, as part of the amendments resulting from the passage of Bill C-10, new criminal cartel and civil agreements provisions came into force on March 12, 2010. These provisions were delayed for one year to give companies an opportunity to verify that their existing or proposed agreements and arrangements did not violate the new civil and criminal provisions. During this time, companies were able to apply to the bureau at no cost for an advisory opinion as to how the bureau would view a pre-existing agreement under the new provisions.
Under the previous cartel provisions of the act, it was extremely difficult to secure a conviction. The Crown needed to prove that an anti-competitive agreement resulted in substantial harm to competition and to prove that element to the criminal standard of beyond a reason doubt.
These hurdles faced by the bureau were out of step with our major trading partners and harmed Canada's international credibility. The provision had not changed significantly in almost 120 years. The Competition Policy Review Panel recommended that this outdated law be changed and this government acted.
We introduced a two-track approach to address agreements among competitors so that the bureau can crack down on harmful conspiracies and pro-competitive agreements and joint ventures can proceed expeditiously.
Price-fixing is a criminal activity that deprives Canadians of the benefits of a competitive market, such as lower prices and choice. The new cartel provision will provide the commissioner with even stronger tools to challenge this type of anti-competitive practice.
At the same time, a new civil provision has been introduced that allows firms to combine capabilities and resources in order to lower their costs of production, enhance product quality and reduce the time required to bring new products to market, all without any fear of a criminal investigation, and this is as it should be, of course.
These collaborations may be reviewed civilly where they are likely to lead to a substantial lessening or prevention of competition. In such circumstances, the Competition Tribunal may prohibit collaboration, but that is all it can do.
Bill C-452 proposes to amend the Competition Act to authorize the Commissioner of Competition to inquire into an entire industry sector. The commissioner currently has considerable powers in her enforcement role to investigate the state of competition in the marketplace and these powers are appropriately tied to whether the Competition Act is being violated. Importantly, the commissioner investigates the behaviour of businesses and individuals where there is evidence that they may have broken Canada's competition laws.
It is clear that the issues the House must consider when debating this bill are far-reaching and very complex. I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for his efforts to date and the introduction of this bill. I understand that he has noble intentions regarding this matter. However, I wish to remind him of the public and private costs associated with assigning new powers to the commissioner.
We must also recognize the very significant new powers that this government has recently provided the commissioner in order to investigate and deter the types of activities that lie at the heart of this bill. These tools are targeted directly at the types of practices that lie at the heart of the hon. member's concerns and, therefore, will be far more effective than those proposed in the current bill.
The Competition Policy Review Panel argues forcefully that it is vigorous competition that spurs a cycle of innovation, boosts efficiency and adaptability, and raises productivity. The recent changes to the Competition Act are evidence that this government will continue to take the right steps to strengthen Canada's economy and create sustainable employment. It is against this backdrop that the proposal outlined in Bill C-452 should be thoroughly reviewed.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act May 11th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join my colleagues in speaking to the issue of pensions and income security of Canadians in retirement. In particular, I wish to address the actions already taken by the government to provide protection for the claims of pensioners in insolvency and how these actions are consistent with or exceed the protection provided by other countries under their insolvency laws.
Let me begin by acknowledging the challenges faced by Canadian pensioners and their families during the recent economic downturn. This government understands the issues and considers them extremely important. It is for that reason that we have taken and continue to take measures that will better protect pensions and pensioners, whether it be in a bankruptcy or company restructuring context, in the context of overall retirement adequacy, or in the more general context of how the national economy is doing.
Let me also acknowledge the specific challenges created for pensioners when a company files for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, or restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, CCAA. Such proceedings have an impact on both current and former employees, as well as on the interests of creditors and stakeholders.
The concerns of employees and pensioners who find themselves in the insolvency process cannot be minimized. They have followed the rules. They have made their pension payments. But as a result of the insolvency of their employer, in some instances, they find themselves facing the prospect of reduced pensions.
The protection of pensions where an employer becomes insolvent is a significant element of our existing economic infrastructure. When considering the protection of pensions or any other obligation, it is important to recognize that both the BIA and the CCAA are fundamental marketplace framework laws that play an important part in maintaining Canada's economic well-being. They both set out rules for how individuals and companies may become bankrupt or may restructure their affairs.
It is always unfortunate when individuals or businesses find themselves in the position of being unable to meet their obligations. The economic reality of insolvency is that the creditors and stakeholders of an insolvent business that is no longer viable will receive less than what they are owed.
The insolvency system serves a vital economic purpose by allowing for a fair and orderly treatment of creditors, generally in accordance with the legal rights and obligations that were in place before the insolvency, as well as the fair treatment of the insolvent person or business.
In light of these principles, the government has already taken action to protect the claims of pensioners in insolvency. In recent years amendments were made to Canada's insolvency legislation, both the BIA and CCAA, to provide a higher priority for outstanding regular pension contributions.
This means that unpaid regular contributions are now paid ahead of secured creditors in bankruptcy proceedings under the BIA. In the case of a restructuring under CCAA, a restructuring plan cannot be approved by the court unless the plan provides for the repayment of unpaid regular contributions.
In the consideration of Bill C-501, where we are talking about giving super priority status to unfunded pension plan liabilities, we must assess the potential impact of such changes on the economy as a whole.
Unfunded pension liabilities are made up of the deficit between existing pension assets and the obligations to pay benefits to pensioners. Unfunded liabilities can occur as a result of poor market performance, even if all required regular contributions have been made.
To emphasize the point, the BIA and the CCAA are both important marketplace laws that potentially impact economic activity and business decisions of all sectors of the economy. Lenders, investors, suppliers, landlords, employees and customers, all make decisions based in part on the consequences that may ensue if a business were to become insolvent. Any changes to insolvency legislation should be approached with the effects on all of these players in mind.
When considering the protection of pensions through the use of the insolvency system, it is worth remembering that Canada is not alone in dealing with this issue. The practises of other countries can provide useful guidance in consideration of potential solutions.
As a result of the economic downturn and changing demographics, countries around the world are examining how to respond to the challenge of financing secure retirements for their citizens. Given the shared international challenge, it would be instructive to consider how pension claims are treated in bankruptcy in other major countries, and compare Canada's treatment of such claims in bankruptcy with that of countries with similar economies.
Clearly, any comparison will not be exact. Some countries, such as Italy and France, have mainly state-funded pensions and few private employer-sponsored pensions, which make the insolvency of contributing employers largely irrelevant to the amount received by pensioners.
Other countries, like New Zealand, treat pension claims as wage claims, giving claimants access to wage guarantee funds instead of protection in the bankruptcy process.
Still others, like the United States and the United Kingdom, have pension guarantee funds, financed by premiums or general tax revenues.
Bearing in mind these differences, it is very significant to note that Canada is one of the few countries among the members of the G20 and the 30 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or the OECD, that grant a super priority for outstanding pension contributions. Among OECD members, only Canada, Japan and Poland provide for such a super priority. The other countries have a preferred or unsecured claim, providing for a lower degree of protection than Canada.
However, with respect to the protection of unfunded liabilities, like Canada, a large majority of members of the OECD, including such countries as Australia, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, treat unfunded pension liabilities as unsecured claims in insolvency.
This government has taken measures to better protect pensions through amendments to the BIA and CCAA, with the steps already taken being more protective of pension claims than that of most economically advanced countries.
The government, consistent with its throne speech commitment to better protect workers whose employers go bankrupt, is looking at broader issues and exploring comprehensive solutions, both inside and outside of insolvency law, to protect pensions and enhance the security of incomes for Canadians in retirement.
A further response to the complex equations implicit in pension discussions will be carefully balanced to do the most good for pensioners while continuing to protect the health of our economy as a whole.