Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 2420
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Walker, for lending your expertise to us this afternoon and for all the great work you've done on this issue. We certainly appreciate it.
There are a number of questions and I have a lot to get through, so forgive me: I'm not skipping over predictability and transparency, but I want to back up a tiny little bit.
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
I think we've got a good picture, and you've given us some really good explanations and requirements.
I want to go back to the Budget Implementation Act of 2009, if I may, and some of the Wilson report's recommendations that were included in the 2009 report, mostly around what I'm going to call the threshold. You understand the review threshold for investments.
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
They were supposed to change from $312 million in book value to $1 billion in enterprise value, and we haven't been able to move that forward. I think you wrote last year, in September 2010, in a report called “Recent Developments in Foreign Investment Review in Canada: Much Fanfare, Much Furor…Much Ado about Nothing?”--
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay, perfect. On the reasons for the government delays in regulations around the higher enterprise value, could you elaborate on why the government's delay in implementing the new threshold isn't clear? Do you know what's happening at that end? How much more quickly can we move forward?
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Is this a source of uncertainty for investors and the legal community? How much of a concern is this? They know the threshold is moving. Is it again around the whole issue of predictability?
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Are there any recommendations you'd like to make to this committee on defining “enterprise value”? There seem to be a lot of issues around the definition of “enterprise value”.
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Industry Canada told us that there's a delay due to the consultations on how to define it. When Industry Canada came to the committee, that was their reason for the delay.
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
You spoke about the Wilson report. The Wilson report made very clear recommendations to enhance transparency and predictability, which is how you started your discourse this afternoon. As an example, one recommendation was to increase the use of guidelines and other advisory materials, but those recommendations haven't been implemented at this point, nor were they raised under the context of the Budget Implementation Act when other issues were raised around this. Would you encourage--
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Would you encourage the government to implement specific recommendations of the Wilson report? You made some very good recommendations here as well this afternoon. Are there others we should do that you're aware of?
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Speaking about guidance, in the 2009 Budget Implementation Act, there was this requirement for a new annual report that Industry Canada must provide to the minister on the administration of the ICA. Now, we have yet to see such a report. That aside, you're a practitioner in the foreign investment field. What sort of information details should be contained in the annual report? What would you like to see?
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes.
View Siobhan Coady Profile
Lib. (NL)
One of the things you talked about was the need for understanding both the rules and the reasoning. How would investors use this report, when we get to having one, and how would Canadians? Is this a tool for people who are entering Canada thinking about foreign investment, as well as giving you some guidelines to encourage people who want to come—
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-24 10:10
I think Mr. Bagnell makes two very, very relevant points. There's nothing prohibiting the letter being read into the record, with translation. There's nothing that would prevent the Auditor General from passing an opinion if she chooses. She may not pass an opinion on this particular piece of legislation outside the realms of this committee. That would be available to us as parliamentarians in a third reading debate, which we all know is probably a little bit of a long shot at this particular point, but nonetheless, there will be an opportunity for her to do that.
I'm not sure what the procedure is around auditors general commenting on bills that may have some impact prior to them being brought into force or brought into effect by either the House of Commons or the Senate. For instance, I can't recall the government having the Auditor General do a review of their budget, their prison agenda, their jets agenda, or any of their fiscal policy. If somebody can tell me what piece of financial legislation or fiscal policy they have called the Auditor General in to do a review of, I'd like to see it. But I don't think it happens.
I think the real crux here is, do we want to get to clause-by-clause? The motion speaks to postponing clause-by-clause on what I would call very spurious grounds that don't make much sense. So I call the question on the motion.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-24 10:11
Is the question debatable once we call the question? What's the ruling?
Results: 1 - 15 of 2420 | Page: 1 of 162

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data