44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I think I was quite careful and precise in what I said, but I will repeat it. I said that if the foreign buyer is a Chinese state-owned enterprise, the threshold should be zero. The threshold for the dollar amount of a transaction by a Chinese state-owned enterprise should be zero.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I found my Conservative colleague's speech very enlightening. I find it interesting that he pointed out that there have been cases in the past, which were investigated after the fact, where there was an obligation to conduct a national security review. The government does not seem to have done the work it was required to do and analyze whether the investment was a good idea or not.
The bill under consideration, Bill C‑34, is intended to provide a bit more authority. At the end of the day, if the requirement is the same, if the government is not doing its job any more than it is now, does my colleague think that anything will change?
I find it peculiar because he talked about a case. In my riding, there was a case where there was also an obligation to review. Thanks to an access to information request, it was discovered that there had been no review. It seems that the government is systematically delinquent when it comes to its own obligations. How does that happen?
Does that not worry my colleague?
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point, which I did touch on, but it bears repeating. The government failed to use the existing tools under this act in the past, so here we are, debating the creation of new tools and stronger tools with a government that would not use the tools that already existed. Its credibility on this issue is a problem, and we need to get really serious about this, not just through new laws but also through implementation of laws, both existing and new, as contemplated in Bill C-34.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Harper government increased the threshold above which foreign takeover of a Canadian firm is reviewed from $330 million to $1 billion. I am wondering if the member stands by that decision or if he supports reducing the current threshold to zero so every prospective transaction by either state-owned or state-controlled enterprises triggers a review.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said both in my speech and in my remarks to the government deputy whip, if the buyer is a state-owned enterprise of an autocratic regime like the People's Republic of China, the threshold should be zero.
With respect to the preamble to her question regarding the increase to the threshold in general, I think that was made to be compliant with regulation under the WTO. I was not a member of that government, but that is my understanding of why that decision was made quite a number of years ago.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion on the Liberal side about this issue of zero state-owned enterprises. In the last quarter, four lobster-buying businesses in my riding were acquired by a Chinese state-owned enterprise. It controls the price at the dock. It paid five times the value of the business. It is taking that over. That is why, from my view, I support what the member said, but I wonder if the member could expand on that a little more to educate the folks on the government side so they will accept some amendments.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is what this is all about: debate to get the best ideas out there. That is why it is important to go to a zero-dollar threshold when we are talking about a state-owned enterprise from the People's Republic of China. They buy a series of small businesses that in aggregate can actually distort markets. Buying a single fishing boat or buying a single wharf is perhaps not going to distort the market, but when a whole series of transactions below a threshold are combined, it will have the effect of a much larger transaction.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about foreign investment, because as members may recall, in a past life in the Harper government, when we had a robust trade and investment agenda, I had the opportunity to be the trade minister. I travelled around the world to many different countries promoting Canadian investment. That is a two-way street, of course. We can talk about Canadians investing abroad, which we do, but there are also foreign companies—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:31:04 p.m.
- Watch
I do not know if there is a cross-debate or if members are having conversations, but I would ask them to take their conversations outside.
The hon. member for Abbotsford.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, foreign investment, whether it is investments coming into Canada or Canadians investing abroad, can contribute markedly to our national prosperity. I have travelled all around the world promoting Canadian investment, because there was a time when Canada was a great place to invest. Sadly, over the last few years under the Liberal government there has been a decline in foreign investment. Why is foreign investment abandoning Canada? It is because of high taxes and regulatory uncertainty. This should concern all Canadians, because when foreign investment comes to Canada, for the most part it drives job creation if it is done right and contributes to our overall prosperity as a country.
However, as we welcome foreign investment into our country, we also have to be very judicious, making sure that those investments, first, represent a net benefit to Canadians and, second, do not represent a national security threat to our country. That is where the Investment Canada Act comes in. It was created to ensure that as foreigners invest in Canada, we have mechanisms and tools available to review those investments, to welcome those who are going to contribute to the overall good of the country and to reject those who are not good for our country.
The bill before us is seeking to introduce some amendments to the Investment Canada Act that purportedly will really improve the robustness of this regime. Unfortunately, if we dig down into the seven main amendments being proposed, they are mostly tinkering around the edges. Why do I say that? I do not believe they will markedly reduce the influence of foreign corporations and their ability to invest in Canada, especially when they come from increasingly hostile regimes around the world.
When we look around the world, I think all of us can agree that investments coming from a country like Russia require special diligence. Investments that come from places like Iran and China require a special degree of vigilance to make sure they serve our national interest. More and more often, we have seen under the Liberal government that investments have come from abroad from the more hostile regimes around the world, which engage in espionage and make investments that are not necessarily for the good of our country but promote a foreign country's economic interests. My colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge has already articulated some of the cases where the Minister of Industry has failed to subject investments to the kind of rigorous review that Canadians would expect of its government.
For example, we had a situation where an RCMP contract was awarded for the supply of sensitive hardware for communications to a company that had earlier been purchased by a China-based company beholden to the communist regime in Beijing. How can that be? It is because the minister refused to do a national security review of that foreign investment into Canada. It was also revealed that the Canada Border Services Agency has used communications equipment and technology from the same company.
Canadians need to know that this very same company was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States. Would we trust this company not to conduct espionage in our country? Of course not. The reality is that I could go through the same list of foreign transactions my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge listed, to which the minister refused to apply the kind of rigour to reviewing these foreign investments that Canadians would expect.
We also have to understand that the geopolitical and security landscape around the world has changed dramatically and the risks Canada faces are that much more acute. We look around the world at countries like China, Russia and Iran that are flexing their muscles economically and militarily in the field of cyber-espionage, and we are incredibly vulnerable, so we have to pay attention to this.
I would also mention that, as we look at investments from abroad, there are some who have said we should be very cautious about welcoming investments of state-owned enterprises from a country like China into our country because of the allegiance of those corporations to the communist regime in Beijing. However, the reality is that, not long ago, China passed a national intelligence law, under which all Chinese corporations and citizens, whether at home or abroad, are required to act as agents of the government and hand over any information the Chinese communist authorities demand.
Therefore, any company from that country, and any citizen from that country, is expected to be an agent of the government, so as we look abroad for investment, it behooves us, as legislators and decision-makers, to make sure we are prudent in whom we welcome to our country to invest.
The largest majority of investments come from countries we would gladly welcome investment from. Obviously, if the United States has a corporation that wants to invest in Canada, we would say we welcome that investment, generally speaking. If it is a huge investment, we may want to put a special spotlight on that investment to make sure there is a net economic benefit to Canada, but by and large, the investments we attract to Canada, we welcome.
As such, the Investment Canada Act is targeted and makes sure that the investments that are problematic are reviewed by our federal government. The legislation before us, unfortunately, had the opportunity to implement the nine recommendations an earlier report from the industry committee had brought forward. Sadly, only two of those recommendations have actually been adopted by the government in its amendments to the Investment Canada Act. What a lost opportunity.
We, as a country, can do so much better, and the reality is that we, as Conservatives, have long had a robust approach to foreign investment. When we were in government, we made major reforms to the Investment Canada Act. We said “no” to investments. We required a number of foreign investments to be qualified and conditional before they could be invested in Canada.
I have just outlined very briefly what it is we are debating here, the Investment Canada Act amendments. Let us make sure we get it right.
1036 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member started off by talking about how, in the last few years, Canada has performed horribly in terms of investment, and how nobody wants to invest in Canada. We do not have to dig far into the Internet to find a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development from 2021 that specifically says that Canada, in the last five years, has ranked among the top two in the G20 for doing business; is the third-easiest in the G7 to start a business; is the fourth among the G20 for being the least complex to start a business; and had the second-largest foreign and direct investment-to-GDP ratio in the G20 between 2016 and 2020.
Where is the member getting his information that would suggest Canada is not a place that is open for business?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have yet to learn that they should never ask a former international trade minister a question they do not know the answer to.
Here is the answer. I get my information from the International Monetary Fund. Members will notice that the member did not actually address investment. He talked about GDP, economic performance and regulation, but he did not talk about Canada being a destination for investment.
The IMF said, “According to the latest results...the world’s top ten recipients of foreign direct investment...[are] the United States, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, China, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and Germany.” Canada is not even in the top 10. Shame on us, that we would be so far down the list.
Let me suggest that the member go back to the drawing board, get his statistics right, and then come back to the House and start debating.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:42:58 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he had an opportunity to ask a question, and I want to remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets that it was not his turn to speak either.
We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has the floor.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague whether the Conservatives would be willing to agree with the NDP that a good amendment to this bill would be to ensure including any investment in a Canadian company made by a foreign investor that goes through, and later that company is bought by a state-owned enterprise.
The example I gave was Anbang Insurance Group in British Columbia and Retirement Concepts. I think we need to make an amendment so we drop the requirements to zero so all those investment proposals would be examined by industry Canada.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do thank the member for that very good question. He has not yet provided us with a copy of the amendment that he would like to propose. We will look at it very carefully.
Quite frankly, it sounds like it makes sense. We, as Conservatives, strongly believe that the Investment Canada Act must be made more robust. I believe the member knows that we will be bringing forward our own amendments at committee to make sure we get that outcome. We do, in principle, support the legislation. It is just that it is a bill that is so lacking in substance when we have an opportunity now to get this right.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the following.
He has said that foreign investment has plummeted during the time of government, while at the same time acquisitions by state-owned and state-controlled enterprises have gone through without review. That has resulted in something that was best captured in last week's Globe and Mail article titled, “The growing threat of a low-wage future for Canadians”. I just want to quote two lines from that editorial.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ranks this country last in potential economic growth over the next 40 years.
If that OECD forecast becomes reality, the Canada of 2060 will be a relatively poorer country, falling further and further behind other advanced economies into second-tier status.
Would the member comment on that?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am familiar with that article. I am familiar with those statistics, and they are damning of the Liberal government because we could do so much better as a country. We are so rich in human resources and in natural resources. We are high-tech leaders, yet somehow, we are falling further and further behind when it comes to our economic performance. Part of that is the fact that we are no longer an attractive place to invest in.
We can do better.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start off by saying that I will be sharing my time.
I am pleased to appear before us today to speak in favour of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, and in particular, the context that led us to undertake these amendments.
Canadians know that our government will always act quickly and decisively to respond to threats to our national security. They also know that a nuanced approach is necessary to ensure that we do not impede the flow of capital that is so important to our continued prosperity.
Indeed, Canada remains a destination of choice for foreign investment. This investment helps businesses prosper and grow, creates well-paying jobs and ensures strong economic growth that benefits all Canadians. Canada has a long-standing reputation for welcoming foreign investment and a strong framework to promote trade while advancing Canadian interests. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for FDI.
The Investment Canada Act was enacted 38 years ago in 1985. The act allowed the government to review foreign investments to ensure that these benefits exist, and it was updated in 2009 to include a framework for a national security review of foreign direct investments.
The world in which Canada now operates is increasingly characterized by the complexity of linkages between economic competition and geostrategic clashes. Globalization has brought new threats to Canada's national and economic security. By exploiting access routes to the Canadian economy through investment, potentially hostile foreign actors can appropriate technologies, data and infrastructure, which are critical to Canada's national security. We also know that some foreign states seek to inhibit Canada's economic growth and to exercise economic coercion against Canada.
Such activities pose a threat not only to Canada's national security but also to its long-term economic prosperity. Canada must have the tools and resources to protect its assets from economic threats to national security. The Investment Canada Act must therefore also continually adapt to these considerations. The complexity of these dynamics can be seen in the increased volume of activity under the act in recent years.
Indeed, there have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in an entire previous decade. The review process is also increasingly complex, as international transactions and ownership structures are also becoming more complicated. The proposed modernization of the Investment Canada Act is designed to make this review process more efficient and more transparent.
Economic-based threats to national security are an area of increasing concern not just for Canada but for our allies as well. Other international jurisdictions are moving in response to shifting geopolitical threats, either by amending or putting in place investment screening regimes. Our action is needed to bring Canada into greater alignment with our international partners and allies.
We will recall that the Investment Canada Act played an important role in Canada's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As early as March 2022, we issued a policy statement that any investment controlled or influenced by the Russian state will also support a determination by the minister that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such an investment could be injurious to Canada's national security, regardless of its value.
This statement sends a clear message about our commitment to protecting Canada's economic security from unwanted investment. Moreover, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy is clear that this region will play a critical role in Canada's future over the next half century.
The significant opportunities for economic growth in this region are also accompanied by challenges related to the objectives of certain world powers that do not share our democratic and liberal principles. We must respond to this reality in a number of ways, including in the way foreign investment is assessed.
In short, the Investment Canada Act plays a key role in protecting Canada's economic interests from hostile foreign actors. It is broad in scope and allows Canada to respond to changing threats that may arise from foreign investment while protecting Canada's openness to beneficial international investment.
The package of amendments proposed in this bill is designed to assure businesses and investors that Canada has a clear and predictable regulatory regime. Today, we are taking bold steps to modernize key aspects of the Investment Canada Act to ensure that our review regime continues to be effective, rigorous, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world.
I thank—
749 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, I do have to stop the hon. member there. She will have four and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motion at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
