Mike Wallace

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the member opposite. I am somewhat confused by what he has to say. First of all, he is a economist on the NDP benches, which has to be confusing to start with.

I am going to start with his last comment on energy security. In my own riding, in our own area, where I and the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale are from, they are looking at turning the pipeline around in terms of the flow. The oil flow now goes from Montreal to Sarnia, for refining. They are looking at turning it around and having oil going in at Sarnia and flowing towards Montreal to be refined there and used.

We are getting push-back from a number of organizations, including our provincial NDP friends. I think they need to get that message out, that we do want energy security. There is opportunity for us here. We all should be on board for that.

My question to the member is this. I know he was not part of the Government of Canada at the time. He had not been elected yet. We had a choice at the industry committee: we could look at the long form census or we could look at the Investment Canada Act. The opposition chose—

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way. I want to clarify a couple of his statements to make sure the next time he comes to the House he does the homework. On the Stelco deal with U.S. Steel, it did not meet its obligations and the Government of Canada, this government, took it to court and sued it. We came to an out-of-court agreement to resolve those issues; so we do take action when they do not make it.

Members should do their homework first, before they say things that are not actually true.

Second, I was on the industry committee when the minister of industry at the time—a different minister from the one we have presently—sent us a letter asking us to please study this before there are any issues, saying we needed to not look at the law when there is a crisis or an issue but look at it in an intellectual, systematic approach to see what we can do better. However, the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc got together and said we could not do that.

The last piece, which I need to explain to my colleague, was on the P3 issue we are dealing with around intellectual property. Under section 3 of the criteria, it says that the effect of investment on productivity, industrial efficacy and technological development and product innovation, which is what we are talking about, is covered under these—

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I sit with my colleague on a government committee and I appreciate the work she does.

I would like to read out one of the six criteria outlined now on the website with the net benefit test. I would like to know the NDP's position, what word changes it is looking for and what thoughts it has put into the changes it would like to see. Let us take the example of the effect of the investment on competition within industries within Canada. What would the NDP do to change that criteria?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I find the discussion from my Liberal colleague very interesting. The act came into effect in 1985 under a Conservative government. Unfortunately for Canada, I do not recall the Liberal Party ever turning down a deal when it was in government.

The Liberals talk about transparency. Exactly what the Investment Canada Act is and what it stands for can be found on the Industry Canada website.

When we were a minority during the last Parliament, the Minister of Industry sent a letter to the industry committee asking it to review the Investment Canada Act on the criteria of net benefit. The Liberals had four or five seats on the committee, and with the Bloc and the NDP, they turned down reviewing that issue. In retrospect, do they think that was a mistake?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to read the statement by the Prime Minister on why the oil sands was chosen in this case.

As I just stated, there are very few players in the development of the oil sands. The issue today is that we need to look at where we are going as a country in the development of that Canadian resource. Because there are so few players, 15 at present, the decision was made that we needed to ensure that this Canadian resource, in future, would not progress further to foreign-owned entities and that there should be some guidelines, some criteria, placed in that area. That is why it was chosen. It is very simple. The Prime Minister stated it clearly at the press conference.

I do not understand why, if this is such an issue to the Liberal Party, it did not want to study the criteria in the Investment Canada Act two years ago when I was on the industry committee in a minority government? We said that we should be studying the criteria in the Investment Canada Act but the Liberal Party was opposed to studying that. The Liberal members wanted to deal with other items that they considered to have more political importance at the time. I think that was a mistake. I am glad to hear that those members are at least interested in the topic now.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada elected a majority Conservative government because they knew we would deal with issues and policies in a responsible and effective manner, which would not happen under an NDP government.

The fact is that the criteria is laid out clearly in writing and in the act for net benefit, including the criteria for net benefit for foreign-owned enterprises. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry reviewed those issues as the law stands today and they came to the conclusion that there was a net benefit to Canada based on the criteria outlined and on the submission by that organization.

The Prime Minister, in a very responsible way, clearly indicated that there were only 15 companies in total operating the oil sands resource. Also, as a government, we needed to take a strong position that in future no foreign-owned companies would be able to take a stronger position in the oil sands.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the opposition day motion. I am honoured to share my time with the terrific member for Ajax—Pickering.

Foreign investment plays an important role in the Canadian economy. Foreign investors bring with them knowledge, capabilities and technology, which can increase the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian firms. These investments frequently help Canadian-based companies to expand and create jobs for Canadians. Recognizing the importance of investment flows into the country, Canada has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment, while at the same time protecting Canadian interests.

It is important to note that investment flows both into and out of Canada. In fact, in the past several years Canadian companies have invested more abroad than foreign companies have invested in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, the stock of foreign investments into Canada reached $607.5 billion in 2011, while Canadian investments abroad reached $684.5 billion. The Investment Canada Act provides a mechanism to review significant acquisitions of Canadian enterprises by non-Canadian companies to determine if they are likely to be of net benefit to Canada. It also provides a mechanism to review investments that could be injurious to our national security.

I will take this opportunity to describe for members how the Investment Canada Act works and how decisions are taken by the Minister of Industry.

The administration of the act is shared between two ministers and their respective departments. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is responsible for the review of investments involving cultural businesses and the Minister of Industry is responsible for the review of all other investments. The Minister of Industry is also responsible for all other aspects of the administration of the act, including initiating enforcement measures. My comments today will focus only on those investments that are the responsibility of the Minister of Industry.

When a foreign investor proposes to acquire a Canadian business, the investor has certain responsibilities under the act. Foreign investors must either file a notification or an application for a review.

An investor must file a notification where there is an establishment of a new Canadian business or where there is a direct acquisition of control of a Canadian business with assets below the established threshold. Indirect acquisitions of control by investors from WTO countries are also subject to notification. This is triggered when a foreign investor requires control of a Canadian business indirectly by acquiring a company incorporated outside of Canada, which has a Canadian subsidiary.

For an investment which is not subject to a net benefit review under the act, where an investor has provided the information required by the regulations respecting the Investment Canada Act, the investor has met its obligations under the act. Information required under the regulations includes the names of the investors and the Canadian business, their respective addresses, a description of the business of the latter and the level of its assets.

Where a proposed investment is subject to a net benefit review under the act, the investor cannot implement the transaction without the approval of the minister responsible for the act. The investor must provide certain information as part of the filing of an application, including his or her plan for the Canadian business. Acquisitions are subject to review when the assets of the Canadian business to be acquired are equal to or above thresholds established under the act.

The threshold which applies to WTO members is adjusted each year by an amount equal to the change in the nominal gross domestic product. For 2012, the threshold for WTO members is $330 million. The threshold for cultural businesses and non-WTO members remains at a level established in 1985. It is $5 million for direct acquisitions or $50 million for indirect acquisitions, a much lower threshold for those industries.

The act provides the Minister of Industry with an initial 45 days to complete the review of the proposed investment and to make a determination of the net benefit. The Minister of Industry can extend that review period, if necessary, by 30 days. The review period can be extended further if both the investor and the Minister of Industry both agree.

The Minister of Industry approves an application for review only where he or she is satisfied, based on the plans, undertakings and other representations of the investor, that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. In making this determination of net benefit, the Minister of Industry must consider the factors listed in section 20 of the act.

For those in the House who do not know this, these six criteria are clearly indicated on the website and are easily found. They state:

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 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 of which the Canadian business or new Canadian business forms or would form a part;

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 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; and

f. the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.

Also, for investors of state-owned enterprises, which has been an issue of late, the guidelines for the net benefit assessment investments by state-owned enterprises published under the Investment Canada Act applies to these proposed investments. The guidelines clarify that in the review under the ICA, as part of the assessment of the factors listed in section 20 of the act, the minister will examine: one, the corporate governance and reporting structure of the non-Canadian, including adherence to free market principles and Canadian laws and practices; two, how and the extent to which the non-Canadian is owned or controlled by a state; and three, whether the Canadian business can be acquired while continuing to have the ability to operate on a commercial basis.

As indicated in these guidelines, the examples of undertakings that address these issues include: the appointment of Canadians as independent directors on the board; employment of Canadians in senior management positions; the incorporation of the business in Canada; and a Canadian stock exchange listing.

The Investment Canada Act has a very clear net benefit test listed for all to see in writing on Industry Canada's website, including specific criteria on state-owned enterprises. Our government has acted to ensure that these criteria are up-to-date and reflect the evolution of foreign investment proposals to ensure that while Canada remains open for business, it is not for sale to foreign governments.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech and the work that she does on the industry committee. Nonetheless, I think the NDP members should be careful about using the Hamilton example, where U.S. Steel purchased Stelco, which was bankrupt and would not likely be in existence today if it were not for U.S. Steel. Right next door another purchase was made, this time of Dofasco by ArcelorMittal, which is doing very well in that same business of steel in that same city. The foreign investment in Dofasco has made a significant difference to that community. Therefore, I would be very careful if I were the New Democrats in using that example.

I was on the industry committee a couple of years ago and the Conservatives put forward a plan to study the Investment Canada Act, which was turned down by the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP on that committee. I can clearly recall the NDP talking about there being no need to discuss that act then.

Does the critic think it was a mistake for the NDP to stop us reviewing the Investment Canada Act a couple of years ago?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to make it clear for the viewing public who are listening to this, the bill is 440 pages. Exactly half of that is in English and the other half is in French. The member knows that what is said in English is said exactly the same in French. I do not know whether they know that.

Of the 220 pages, which took me two and a half hours to read, is my colleague not happy with any of it or are there parts she is happy with and would vote for? Whether it is 5 pages or 220 pages, she would not be supporting us anyway.

[Operation Red Nose, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Burlington branch of St. John Ambulance is once again providing an important service this Christmas season.

Operation Red Nose is a unique program devoted to the prevention of drinking and driving. It is a volunteer driving service offered during the holiday season to all drivers who have been drinking.

The Operation Red Nose service is provided by driving teams, each consisting of three volunteers. Two of the volunteers, a driver and a navigator, ride with the client in the client's vehicle while the other volunteer, the escort driver, follows behind in their own car. In this manner, the client arrives home safety along with their own vehicle.

The service is confidential and free. Donations from clients are gratefully accepted. This weekend, my wife and I, as well our member of the provincial legislature, will be a volunteer team.

I want to encourage everyone in Burlington to use this free service. Please do not drink and drive during this holiday season.