Mike Wallace

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about our policy framework. I am not talking about a specific case. When this case is over, there will be another one in the future. There was one not that long ago on potash.

What I was talking about was one of the six criteria. All six do not have to come into play when the minister reviews it. It could be one of those six criteria that triggers a decision one way or another, but all six would be considered.

The member is absolutely right. A different acquisition would have a different criteria and a higher priority. I was just highlighting one of the six that happens to be in law now. I have full confidence that our minister will be reviewing and taking under consideration the Investment Canada Act with respect to the current application.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is completely inaccurate in this sense. The member is absolutely right, I was here. I was also a member of industry committee in the previous Parliament. In that committee the Conservatives brought forward the opportunity to study the Investment Canada Act and to make recommendations to the minister for changes. We brought it forward time and time again.

Let me clarify something so people understand. When we were in a minority situation, the decisions on agenda items and what would be studied were made by the committee majority, which was fair. Who was opposed to studying the act? The NDP was opposed to studying it. Those members had other studies they wanted to do. We brought the Investment Canada Act forward time and time again and the NDP did not want to study it or make changes to it. We were interested in discussing change and improvements. All of a sudden, johnny-come-lately says that there is an issue and the NDP is interested in the topic. It is ridiculous. The NDP did not want to do it then and now it only wants to do it for political reasons.

The system we have now, with the six criteria, is the most professional and effective way of doing it. If those members are serious, then the motion would have asked us to review it immediately. The NDP is still not interested in that.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak today to the opposition motion regarding the Investment Canada Act.

I will be sharing my time with the fine member for Don Valley West.

I would like to ensure that everyone understands the six factors listed in the Investment Canada Act and why they are important as part of the review process of the act as it stands today. I am working under the assumption that everybody in the House has read them. However, I want to ensure that my constituents in Burlington have an understanding of the process now, what the law is now and what the evaluation criteria are on foreign investment in Canada.

I will list the six criteria and then I will talk about why they are important. The first is the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including the effect on employment, on resource processing and on the utilization of parts, components and services produced here in Canada.

The second of the six criteria is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business.

The third criterion is the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada.

The fourth factor considered in the Investment Canada Act, which the minister will review and have staff provide information on, and not just on this particular deal that seems to be today's topic but all deals by foreign entities, is the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada.

The fifth criterion is the compatibility of the investment with national, industrial, economic and cultural policies.

Finally, the sixth criterion is the contribution of the investment to Canada’s ability to compete in world markets.

Those are all the criteria set out in legislation, easily found on the Internet and readable by everyone, including those who are investing in or wish to invest in Canada. They provide an understanding of the criteria set out in law for their decision making in terms of pursuing a Canadian company. Of course, the Investment Canada Act is important for foreign companies buying Canadian companies. There are no restrictions on Canadian companies purchasing other Canadian companies. It does not affect any industrial change that may happen when companies want to expand or change product lines within Canada. Canadian companies are more than welcome to make those investments within the country. However, we do need a regulatory framework, which we have, that allows the government and the minister of the day to look at what is good for Canada in the overall picture of a foreign purchase.

I will begin with the last criterion, which is the contribution of the investment and Canada’s ability to compete in world markets, because it is important. It is the criterion the minister will consider by asking if it will make Canada more or less competitive. There is no criterion that says we want to hurt Canada's ability to compete in the world markets.

When we look at any industry today, we need to ask if it will help Canada to be more productive and play a bigger role in the world marketplace. Let us face it, we are not kidding anybody. Everyone operates in a global market. Very few businesses rely on the local market, although some retail businesses do, but even in my community of Burlington, the largest employer, a pork slaughterhouse that packages materials, has 800 employees and its major customers are overseas. It sells in Canada and in North America but it is able to reach out to other parts of the world. The company happens to be owned by an American company, with some local equity and local owners involved.

However, everybody operates in that field and we need a criterion, which we have in the Investment Canada Act. When we look at somebody else buying a Canadian company, we need to look at whether we would be better off having access to marketplaces that we might not have had access to because the Canadian company was too small, or it did not have the delivery network that often would come along with an acquisition or where another company in another part of the world have distribution networks that were not available to the Canadian company. Vice versa, if it reduces our ability as a Canadian company to access other markets or reduces our ability as Canadians to produce and sell around the world, that criterion can be used to stop an acquisition. At least it is part of the criteria.

I will talk about the compatibility of the investment with national, industrial, economic and cultural policies. We have those criteria in there so if there is a purchase of a property, or a business or assets that have a cultural impact on Canada, we have the criteria by which the minister can evaluate what the impact will be on the cultural identity of Canada. If it will hurt the cultural identity of Canada, it is an opportunity for the minister of the day to say that it is not a good investment for Canada because it is against our cultural policies. It gives the government an opportunity to evaluate it. This is the kind of review that will occur on any acquisition that triggers the Investment Canada Act.

Regarding the effect of the investment on competition within the industry and industries in Canada, a key component is we do not think it is a good thing for foreign investment to come into Canada and create monopolies. We on our side of the House believe in competition. We have made policies, whether through free trade or industry, through our industry committee and our industry minister, to increase competition in telecommunications. We think competition provides better products and services to individuals because they have more choice. It drives down prices normally and also drives innovation and change because the businesses want to keep up with the competition. If they do not have any competition, they do not need to change, or improve or provide customer service. However, through competition and innovation that will happen. It is a criterion of the Investment Canada Act that is presently in place, one that the current and previous ministers have used to evaluate where we go.

That is only three of the six. There are six criteria of which everybody needs to be aware. Investments by foreign entities in Canada are not made without any scrutiny, as was indicated by the previous questioner that these things were not being applied. The minister will look at each one, whatever the circumstance might be, and at how it affects Canada. Those decisions will be made in the best interests of Canada in its long-term economic growth and prosperity.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague opposite that it is an insurance program, and it is a normal process to have a two-week waiting period.

I do agree that we should continue to do what we can from an administrative and effectiveness point of view to make sure that individuals who do need EI, after their waiting period, get their cheques as quickly as possible.

I know the minister has been working on making sure we improve our processes to be able to make that happen quicker.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact this pilot program is giving people the opportunity to work more hours and keep more of the money they earn and still continue to collect EI.

It has gone from where people could keep some of it, to a maximum, to now where they can actually keep more of it, on a percentage basis. It is not a disincentive. It is actually the opposite. It is an incentive for people to find more work. People might be only working one day a week, six hours a day, which might be what is available, but if they are able to find more work, even if it is part-time, up to three days a week, they will be able to keep more of the money they earn under this pilot project. It is an incentive to work, not a disincentive.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see where the Conservative Government of Canada is threatening individuals on EI.

In fact, we have enhanced the program in the sense that if people are on EI and looking for work, there are job alerts in terms of what opportunities might be available in their area or skill set that they indicated during the EI process. They get that twice a day now. It used to be once a week, maybe every couple of weeks, that people would hear from the EI office.

We are encouraging people. Encouraging people is not threatening people. We have an EI hiring credit. We have brought in an apprentice incentive grant. There are opportunities for apprentices who need tools, some support for that. Everything we are doing is supportive.

We are not threatening even one soul. We are making sure the system is there so people can take advantage of the opportunities in this country as they become available.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the opposition motion today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and I am happy to hear what he has to say, after my 10 minutes.

I would like to make a couple of introductory comments.

I have been here all day, listening to the discussion and the debate on both sides of the House. I think what is important for Canadians to understand, and for us here in the House to understand, is that this is a pilot project. By the nature of a pilot project, we are looking at what we can do to make things better. Instead of rolling something out that is a fait accompli, we are rolling out a pilot project, making some changes, making some improvements, trying to make things better for all Canadians. In this case, through the EI system, the employment insurance program, we are trying to make improvements. We are trying to make sure there is an opportunity for Canadians to gain full-time employment. It is really about opportunity. That is the end goal. It is the end goal for all of us here. It is the end goal for most Canadians, most family members. They would like to provide for their families through full-time employment.

That is not the case in every part of the country, or at any time of the year, or during what we have had recently with the recessional aspects of what has happened to the economy worldwide and throughout parts of Canada. Therefore they have to take up part-time work. They have to take opportunities that are available. Some of them are for one day, some three days and some four days.

I am not going to get into the semantics of arguing, taking a specific case or a case where somebody works two days or one day, this many hours or that many hours. The concept here is that we are trying, through a pilot project on working on claim, to get people to be able to keep more of their money when they are working while they are also on employment insurance.

Under the previous system, there was a disincentive to work. Under this system that we are piloting, we are trying to encourage people to work.

The whole concept is an incentive to work, so that if people are only working a day or two a week and there is an opportunity, now we are hoping that they will be able to work three or four days a week, maybe five days a week. Before, they were able to keep so much of their money. It may mean one or two or three part-time jobs. I know it is difficult. It is a balancing act for families and individuals who have to do that. I know it is a lot of work. In my community of Burlington, there are a lot of people who are doing that. They are juggling different jobs to be able to make ends meet.

The concept here in this pilot project is to encourage that, promote that, so that in the end, in most cases, in many cases, often part-time work leads to full-time employment. It is better for your resumé. It is good experience. It brings income into people's homes. It also gives them an opportunity to have more money and to further themselves and their career.

I am not going to get into the discussion about what the NDP would do. We all know that the NDP campaign had a carbon tax in it. It had the $21 billion piece in there. But that is not what we are here today to talk about. However, that is the kind of thing the NDP was promoting. We all know that the more taxes people pay the harder it is on the lower-income individuals in this country because it will be applied to everything, whether it is gasoline, groceries and so on. Those are essential needs, not luxury items, and that carbon tax, that additional tax the New Democrats have been promoting, will be a tax on everything.

What we need to talk about is getting people back to work, making sure we have a tax system that is fair and that we move forward.

Through our economic action plan, we have been able to create a little over three-quarters of a million jobs, net new jobs, in this country. That is a net of the job market that was available prior to the recession.

The economic action plan has been very aggressive and very active in the marketplace. It has been successful. It has been able to deliver jobs, deliver opportunity.

What is really important about those jobs is that they are not all part-time jobs. They are mostly full-time employment. That is what we need, that is what families are looking for and that is what will help the economic growth, the productivity of this country.

Often we compare ourselves to other countries, and one area in which Canada is lagging behind, in my view and in the view of many economists, is productivity. These programs we are doing here, including the programs we have put through EI, have assisted in our productivity. We are trying to make Canadians and the Canadian economy more productive, efficient and effective than other economies around the world and we are being successful, not just because of the government's programs but because of Canadians' will to work, to make a difference and to add value to their families, to their country and to their community.

I applaud all Canadians who are out there looking for work and doing what they can and taking up part-time jobs. There is no doubt that it is a difficult task, whether juggling family commitments or other commitments in terms of being in certain places at certain times and moving to different jobs. That is why our EI programs are important, to make that happen.

Earlier today I heard that it is not our money. That is absolutely right. It is not our money. It is the employers' and the employees' money. However, the vast majority of employers in this country, which supply funds to this program, do not lay off people. They do not collect themselves. It is for the potential of their employees losing their jobs or being laid off. The vast majority of employees of this country never collect EI. They pay into the system all their working lives and never have to collect, because it is an insurance program.

I do not want to collect EI and I do not know many Canadians who want to collect EI, but it is an important social net that Canada has developed and it is a good social net. Somebody needs to make sure we manage the money and the program so it works for those who actually need it. We need to speak up and be able to develop programs to make sure that pool of cash is there. We as a government have decided, and rightfully so, that EI money should be used for EI. That is unlike previous governments, which have used the EI fund for other purposes. It is now the law that EI money has to be used on EI programs.

The other area in which I am very proud of our government is that we have done a lot in the area of poverty. EI is an insurance program that is a bridge between jobs and opportunities and things that are happening. However, it obviously affects the income levels of Canadians and it is an important safety net for us as an income support program. We have done a lot and I am very proud of this government. We have the lowest poverty rates in Canada of any government in the history of Canada, and I am very proud of that.

My community is mainly made up of small and medium-sized businesses. The largest business in my community is 800 people and the vast majority are small and medium-sized businesses. People in my riding have come to see me who have relied on the EI system.

In terms of poverty in my area, I am very proud of this government's support for seniors. This is National Seniors Day and on the housing side, supporting low-income seniors, we have been able to develop a couple of new housing developments in my riding to help support seniors. On National Seniors Day, I thank the government for its efforts on that.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice seeing you in the chair. It is the first time I have had the chance to congratulate you and the first time I have seen you in the chair.

I have a question for the hon. member across and I appreciate the approach. Based on the member's speech, there is an issue which he hopes to deal with at committee, meaning he assumes it will get to committee, and I appreciate his support in getting it there. The issue is that the six-month criterion is already there in the previous legislation, as clearly indicated by both the parliamentary secretary and the minister today. The difference is that there is an approach that for an offence that has a two year less a day incarceration there is an appeal process.

I want to be clear that this is his issue. He thinks there should be still a loophole. If the people in Toronto—Danforth told the member that they thought it appropriate that those who were not Canadian, those who had not bothered to become Canadians but were here as foreign nationals, committed serious crimes and if they did it in six months that appeal should be gone, would he change his position?

[Public Transit, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes public transit as a key part of our communities. Since 2006, our government has invested close to $5 billion in public transit, more than any other previous government.

We recognize that municipalities are best suited to make their own transit infrastructure decisions. Our government's $33 billion building Canada fund is providing historic investments in support of several transit projects.

Additionally, our government has passed legislation that makes the gas tax fund a $2 billion annual permanent transfer to provinces and cities. This allows municipalities to continue to count on stable funding for their transit needs.

Tonight the House will vote on Bill C-305, An Act to establish a National Public Transit Strategy. Unfortunately, this strategy would fail to assist municipalities in delivering tangible results for the transit infrastructure priorities. On the other hand, our government continues to remain a strong, stable funding partner for our municipalities, and they can count on us to realize their transit goals.

[Canada National Parks Act, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand today on our first day back to the House from our summer recess to talk to Bill C-370, which would change the name of St. Lawrence Islands National Park to the Thousand Islands national park. I am happy to be talking to this today, but as someone who was born in Brockville, I thought the mover of the motion might rename the national park after me. That did not work out, but I do appreciate what the mover of the motion is trying to accomplish.

I would like to add my voice to those already in support of Bill C-370 and the renaming of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park to Thousand Islands national park.

Our national parks represent the very best that Canada has to offer. These special places are protected so they can be enjoyed by visitors today and tomorrow. In fact, through Parks Canada, the federal government is Canada's largest provider of natural and cultural tourism products and its iconic destinations: national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas. These form the cornerstones of the Canadian tourism industry. Tourism represents a significant economic opportunity for Canada. In 2010, the tourism sector contributed $29.7 billion to the Canadian economy and employed 617,000 Canadians.

As in the whole of Canada, our national parks offer important economic possibilities for the province of Ontario. The Thousand Islands is known throughout the world as a tourism destination. Every year millions of tourists flock to the iconic Thousand Islands region, but very few people know that there is a national park located in the heart of those islands. In fact, it is the closest national park to the city of Ottawa and, even without the creation of Rouge National Urban Park, Thousand Islands national park will remain one of the closest national parks to the city of Toronto.

It is time for us to adapt and renew the possibilities of this majestic national park. Something as simple as changing its name will dramatically alter how Parks Canada engages and attracts members of the public who seek to create great personal memories through meaningful experiences in an incredible national space.

For over 100 years tourism has played a prominent role in the Thousand Islands community, supporting family-owned businesses from generation to generation. St. Lawrence Islands National Park has an annual budget in excess of $1.5 million. While some of that revenue is self generated, a majority comes from Canadian taxpayers. When Parks Canada has publicly stated that it is trying to encourage new Canadians, young Canadians and urban Canadians to visit national parks, it does not make sense for Parks Canada to work outside the regional brand of the Thousand Islands.

Parks Canada has an exemplary record of working within communities through partnering initiatives and stakeholder relations, yet in a region where other private tourism providers take advantage of the strong, recognized and powerful “World Famous Thousand Islands” brand name, in using the term St. Lawrence Islands, Parks Canada is not talking the same language as other Thousand Islands tourism operators.

If members were travelling from Vancouver, Newfoundland or England, would they not find it difficult to distinguish among the offerings of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, Parks of the St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence Islands National Park? Two of these three organizations have many sites outside the immediate Thousand Islands area and are not interchangeable with the national park and have different mandates.

As the government, it is our role to help remove barriers that limit opportunities for Canadians to become more engaged with treasured natural places. We should be doing all we can to help provide opportunities to showcase what Parks Canada has to offer. Placing Thousand Islands national park on the map is a small but significant step that would help enhance public awareness of this incredible park. A name change would present an opportunity to renew Canadians' passion and support for our country's important natural spaces. A name change could help ensure that this national park would find a place in the consciousness of Canadians and would help ensure that future generations would be inspired by and would support this long-established protected treasure.

Economically, a name change to the Thousand Islands national park would align our public offering with those of other regional tourism providers. This would help initiate sustainable expandable growth generating activities and relationships. We would be creating a legacy that would say that lasting improvements could be made by this government. Parks Canada would be able to expand its reach and impact by taking advantage of the existing regional brand.

I realize there may be some in the House who oppose this name change initiative simply because the St. Lawrence Islands National Park has been the official name of the Thousand Islands national park for over 100 years. In fact, national parks have been renamed twice before. In both of these instances the new name better reflected the region in which they were situated. The Northern Yukon National Park was been renamed to Ivvavik National Park and Ellesmere Island National Park became Quttinirpaaq National Park.

Bill C-370 is an easy bill to support because changing the name of St. Lawrence Islands National Park to a name that better reflects the local region to a name that is already used by regional residents and existing park visitors, to a name that will help Parks Canada position the wonderful landscapes and features of the park in the psyche of Canadians, to a name that will immediately improve local, national and international recognition of the park, to a name that will facilitate better interactions with other regional tour operators and tour initiatives, improving the local economic opportunity, simply makes sense.

Thousand Islands national park fits the region, it fits the tradition and it fits the future. Thousand Islands national park is the right name for the right park at the right time.