44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2023 02:00PM
- Feb/8/23 5:08:31 p.m.
- Watch
On a point of order, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill is about foreign direct investment in Canada. It is not about providing subsidies to foreign companies to operate battery plants. I would ask the member if she would—
33 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 5:08:44 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member that there is some latitude during speeches. I am sure that the hon. member will come back to the original bill that is before the House.
The hon. member for Davenport.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was highlighting some of the great investments we have already made, which are innovative and very much set Canada and Canadians up for success.
At the end of January, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced an investment of $100 million through the strategic innovation fund to support Saskatchewan's BHP's $7.5-billion project to develop its world-leading, low-emissions potash fund. To me, this innovation is one of the many investments we are making that are going to help make sure we will be reaching our net-zero targets by 2050.
In mid-January, our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced the launch of Canada's national quantum strategy, which will shape the future of quantum technologies in Canada and help create thousands of jobs. It is an investment of $360 million, and the strategy will amplify Canada's existing quantum research and grow quantum technologies, companies and talent.
Here are another couple of other things I am really proud that we have done.
Our Minister of Innovation has also signed MOUs with Volkswagen to investigate opportunities for Canada to contribute to Volkswagen's global and regional battery supply chains, which will be of mutual benefit to both of our countries and will advance our respective EV and energy agendas. Another great MOU I want to point out is the one we signed with Mercedes-Benz to look at opportunities to promote co-operation and to explore ways to advance opportunities across Canada's electric vehicle supply chain, including, but not limited to, securing sustainable sources of raw materials moving forward.
I will mention one more thing I am very proud of.
In 2019, we set up the innovation asset collective, which is a $30-million pilot that very much helps Canadian clean-tech companies harness the power of IP to maximize the value of their intangible assets and set the stage—
322 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 5:11:01 p.m.
- Watch
On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I hate to have to do this, but in the time since you ruled on the previous point of order, we have not had any connection yet to the bill.
Perhaps, through you, Madam Speaker, we could remind the member to tie this to the bill, because we are actually talking about Bill C-34 and not a laundry list of funding announcements by the government that have nothing to do with the bill.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 5:11:27 p.m.
- Watch
Again, there is a bit of latitude, but the hon. member is correct. I would remind those who are giving speeches today and speaking on this that they should be referencing the bill and maybe mentioning the bill during their allocations.
The hon. member for Davenport has 30 seconds to continue.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thought I had a minute left, but I just want to say to everyone who stood on a point of order that I very much outlined exactly what the bill is meant to do, why it is important to be part of the Investment Canada Act and why it is so important for both current and future economic success for Canada.
As we create a culture around intellectual property, as we work to translate inventions and innovation, as we work to educate and protect IP generated from R and D investment, and as we continue to encourage and need foreign investment and trade in Canada, it is important to modernize our Investment Canada Act for the good of our economy, for jobs, for current and future prosperity and to protect our national security interests.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak—
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 5:12:38 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the first half of the member's speech was a bit about this bill. The last half, obviously, was not.
She is a member of the government, and in 2017, it sent a letter to a company in B.C. that said it is okay to be bought by a state-owned enterprise from China. The former minister of industry said that. The company in China was called Hytera. In 2019, the government did not even do a national security review of this, nor of the acquisition of our only lithium mine, Tanco, in Manitoba.
Can the member enlighten this House, with her extensive reading of the bill, by telling us which clause in the bill will stop that from happening in the future?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 5:13:33 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, Climate Change; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Health; and the hon. member for Nunavut, Indigenous Affairs.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the changes that are being proposed to the Investment Canada Act would provide more flexibility and agility for our minister to make these types of decisions in the future. My understanding is that he is always advised by our national security advisers. We will always take direction from those who provide us advice.
There is a reason we are here: We are constantly modernizing our act to make sure that the national security interests of Canada continue to be protected.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her interesting speech. What is unfortunate is that there is a major problem in Bill C‑34. I do not understand why the government has not addressed it.
It had the opportunity to modernize the Investment Canada Act. It addressed national security. That is a good thing. However, there is another aspect, the net benefit review, which has an extremely high threshold. At this time, the threshold for the review of an investment is between $1.3 billion and $9 billion.
Does my colleague not find this threshold to be too high, and that it makes no sense to not examine investments that fall below that very high threshold?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Investment Canada Act provides for net benefit and national security reviews of foreign investments in Canada. We have proposed a number of changes in this particular act. Assuming the bill passes second reading in the House and goes to committee, there will be many opportunities to consider amendments that might strengthen it.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the concerns the NDP and I have about this bill is that we should be looking more closely at transactions where a company is being taken over by a state-owned enterprise. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets mentioned Chinese investments. In British Columbia, we had a case where Anbang Insurance bought Retirement Concepts, a local British Columbia company that operates long-term care facilities in B.C. That company was then taken over by the Chinese government, yet there was no automatic trigger for an analysis there. We should have that in this bill for when there is a takeover by a foreign state-owned enterprise.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his important work on this file.
As I mentioned, it is not the first time we have updated the Investment Canada Act. We have taken a number of actions to ensure that we have the right tools and flexibility to protect Canada's national security interests. Assuming the bill passes seconding reading in this House, it will go to committee, and there will be many opportunities there for us to have a debate and talk about what additional elements we might want to see in it.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
We are here today to talk about Bill C‑34. To date, there has been a great deal of discussion about national security, which is the main part of the bill. This bill seeks to reinforce the powers the minister has to take action to protect national security. This is not a bad thing; it is even a very good thing, but decidedly, it does not go far enough.
I also want to talk about one of my concerns relating to another aspect of the Investment Canada Act, which, unfortunately, the bill under consideration does not address.
In fact, there are a number of things in the Investment Canada Act. First, people abroad who want, for example, to purchase a company, invest in a mine, start a research firm or make any significant investment whatsoever have to fill out a form and give notice of their investment indicating their intention.
Then, the federal government must determine whether it wants to review the actual investment. It can review it based on national security criteria, which is what this bill is about. The bill seeks to give the minister more power and to tighten the review criteria.
The other review criterion has to do with the net benefit for Canada. That is something that is a little more vague and that is not very clearly defined. I would even go so far as to say that there is not much on the subject in the current act. That gives the minister a lot of latitude in determining what constitutes a net benefit for Canada. In some unforeseen circumstances, it might be good for the minister to have the latitude to use their judgment. However, it would be good to have a bit more accountability and proactivity on the part of the government with regard to the use of the act.
I would like to talk about where the review threshold was when I was first elected in 2015. I would note that the minister is not obligated to conduct a review. Reviews are mandatory only beyond a certain threshold. When I was elected in 2015, the review threshold was $369 million. What is it now? Better be sitting down for this. It has been indexed, but let us just say it is indexing on steroids. Today, in 2023, the threshold ranges from $1.3 billion to $1.9 billion. That means not all transactions go through a net benefit review if they are below that threshold.
The $1.3-billion threshold is for businesses with which Canada does not have a trade agreement, while the $1.9-billion threshold is for those with which it has agreements, such as the U.K., the U.S., the EU and so on.
This means that some Quebec companies are not protected by the current review threshold. These companies are very important to Quebec's economy, which is very different from Canada's economy. The Canadian economy relies heavily on subsidiaries of U.S. companies, but Quebec's economy is more about small and medium-sized businesses. Slowly but surely, some small businesses grow by dint of hard work and even end up getting listed on the stock exchange.
Some of these major Quebec corporations that are publicly traded and are not protected under the current review threshold include Héroux-Devtek, which has a market value of $560 million, Lassonde Industries, which has a market value of $805 million, Cascades, which has a market value of $909 million, TC Transcontinental, which has a market value of $1.3 billion, and Resolute Forest Products, which has a market value of $1.6 billion.
All of these companies could disappear overnight. Any big shot from the U.S. or any other country on the planet could come in and take them over. The minister would not even look at it. It would be rubber-stamped. Thank you, good night, goodbye to that company. These are major, strategic corporations in terms of Quebec's national interest, and the federal government will not even look at them. It could not be bothered to take the time to analyze the transaction. It is unbelievable.
Worse, in some situations, a review is conducted, but it is not always very rigorous. Let me give an example. My riding was home to a company called Rona. Everyone in Quebec knows Rona. It is a major hardware store that sells all the building materials used in homes. In 2016, the company was sold for $3.2 billion to the American company Lowe's, a company in the same sector.
What happened? A review was supposed to take place because, at that time, the threshold was set at $369 million and it was exceeded. However, immediately after the transaction, some potential wrongdoing came to light. The former board of directors was fired, as was its president, Robert Dutton. Complicit in this was the president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, who allegedly planned his exit in order to facilitate the sale of Rona, since it was blocked the first time around, in 2012. This former president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is now working for the Liberals. His name is Michael Sabia.
What is interesting is that when we learned about this, we immediately wrote to Minister Bains. We asked him to take a look at what was happening before authorizing the transaction. We just wanted to put it on hold to see if it was a good idea for Quebec or not. What happened? The minister rubber-stamped it. He did not ask any questions. Before we knew it, the company was gone. That is sad. The company was re-sold for $400 million U.S. when it was originally purchased for $3.2 billion. That loss of value signals an abysmal failure. It was sold for a pittance to another U.S. company after Lowe's fell flat on its face in Quebec.
Well, after the minister approved the transaction, we wondered why he made that decision and what his thought process was. There should have been a net benefit to Canada review. We submitted an ATIP request to see what documents and analyses helped the minister make his decision. The answer we got was surreal. Here is what it said: We carried out a comprehensive search and regret to inform you that we found no documents corresponding to your request.
There are no documents. The minister referred to zero documents and zero analyses to make his decision about net benefit to Canada. That is what passes for rigorous analysis by the Liberals for a company worth $3.2 billion, a massive company of strategic value to Quebec. What do people buy at hardware stores? They buy building materials. Building materials are made from raw materials. What do we produce here? We produce wood, nails, shovels and so on. The products that end up on the shelves in those stores are products we make in Quebec.
What happens when a foreign company buys that company? The foreign company has its own suppliers already. For example, an American company will use American suppliers because it already does business with them. Quebec suppliers get kicked to the curb. That is what happened, unfortunately. Many Quebec suppliers lost their orders.
Now Rona will have a second chance with its new owner. We hope things will improve, but it is sad. What happened was the Liberals could not be bothered to review the transaction to see whether it was beneficial or whether it was even over the threshold. That is a big problem. I find that really odd. When a company comes here from overseas and takes a heavy-handed approach, often our first instinct is to assume that they are much better than us, that they are much bigger and therefore unbeatable. We think we have no choice but to sell, so we immediately roll over.
Companies like Target come to mind. When Target came along, the owners of Zellers sold all their stores. It was a fire sale. Run for your lives. Target was going to come in and kill everyone. What happened to Target? It did not last a year before it shut down. Another example is Provigo. Provigo was a Quebec company, a large grocery store chain that created competition. Now we have Loblaws, which exists in the market and is up against Metro, but there used to be other players, too. Unfortunately, when Provigo disappeared, there was less competition, which resulted in higher prices in grocery stores. Today, there are no longer any Loblaws grocery stores in Quebec. Loblaws put the Provigo signs back up. They realized that the Loblaws stores were not working.
Just because a foreign company comes here does not mean that it will succeed. We too have good, solid companies. We should be proud of them. We should ask questions before rubber-stamping any old transaction. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not understand that. There was an opportunity with Bill C‑34 to do more to defend our companies, and it did not do so. I am really disappointed.
1588 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, what I see is a modernization that would in essence enable the ministers to continue what I believe is a healthy history. Canada has been perceived as, and has been in real terms, an attraction or magnet for foreign investment. What we are talking about here is ensuring there is more transparency and accountability and the ability to protect and provide security in a better way going forward.
The principles of the legislation are worthy of supporting, no matter what side of the House one comes from. I wonder if the member from the Bloc would concur that, at the very least, this legislation should be going to committee. Hopefully it happens relatively soon.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite is pretty much telling us that they are going to modernize Bill C-34, that it is a good thing and that we should be pleased.
I am pleased that Bill C‑34 will be updated somewhat; what is sad is that that requires rigour. The problem is that there is no rigour.
Is there a way to come up with a more rigorous bill, one that would require rigour? That is what I would find more interesting and make me happier.
Let us look at an example. In 2021-22, there were 1,255 notices of foreign investment. That is a lot. How many were examined? How many were reviewed?
Not even 1% of investments were reviewed. That is absolutely crazy, but that is what the government considers to be rigorous. It approves everything and has lost control.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech very interesting, particularly with regard to whether there are any documents to support the minister's decision on the acquisition laws.
In the last Parliament, recommendation number one of the unanimous report by the industry committee was that a state-owned enterprise's financial ceiling for review by the government be lowered from $415 million, from a hostile country like China, to zero. This bill, Bill C-34, does not propose any changes to that limit, which means that state-owned enterprises can buy up anything they like in this country under $415 million.
I would like the member's views on whether he would like to see amendments to this bill in that area.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
