44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport in support of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.
The Investment Canada Act, for those who may not know, is designed to encourage investment, economic growth and employment in Canada. It is a very important act for our federal government, because as we continue to try to create a stronger culture of innovation in Canada, as our economy moves increasingly from tangible to intangible or non-physical assets, as intellectual property becomes more important, and as we work to define the freedom to operate rules in Canada, acts like the Investment Canada Act are very important.
It is also an act that provides mechanisms to review foreign investments in Canada to ensure that foreign investment is a net benefit to Canada and does not harm national security. The rules in the act are established to provide investor certainty while giving Canada the ability to block individual investments under specific circumstances. This act is critical to ensuring a prosperous economic future for Canada and to guiding the right type of investments in our country.
Let us review some of the key changes to the Investment Canada Act that are being proposed by Bill C-34. It is not first time we have made changes to this act, but it is probably the largest set of amendments we have proposed since 2009.
The first thing the bill would do is to introduce a preimplementation filing requirement for specific investments. This would give the Canadian government more tools to review any proposed investments in sensitive business sectors.
It would also give authority to our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, in consultation with our Minister of Public Safety, to order further national security reviews of investments.
It would update penalties to strengthen deterrence of any behaviours we may not want.
It would introduce the authority for the Minister of Industry, again in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on an investment to reduce the risk of national security injury taking place during the course of the review itself, such as through the possible transfer of assets, intellectual property or trade secrets before the review is complete.
The bill would provide greater flexibility in mitigating national security risks by allowing the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, in collaboration with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose binding undertakings on investors. These undertakings would have to demonstrate that they adequately mitigate the national security risk that would arise from the investment in question.
Finally, the bill would allow Canada to share case-specific information with international counterparts to help protect common security interests.
The Investment Canada Act not only sets out the rules that would encourage more investment and trade in Canada, but also includes a number of measures that would serve to protect any foreign-made investments in Canada as well.
The economy is changing, the global trade and investment environment is changing, and so must our rules, legislation and regulations change. This would ensure that Canada is able to attract the best foreign investments and trade that would encourage economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada while also protecting Canada's national security and interests as they relate to trade and foreign investments.
As I mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has updated the Investment Canada Act. He has done so at least three times in the last couple of years. The first time, in March 2021, he updated the national security guidelines in light of the then-evolving national security concerns to include investments involving sensitive personal data, sensitive technologies and critical minerals, as well as investments by state-owned or state-influenced investors.
The second time, we adjusted our federal government act to begin in February 2022, when Russia began its unprovoked and illegal attacks against Ukraine, creating an environment of heightened national security and economic risk. At that time, we put out a policy advising clearly that any investment with ties to Russia would only be found to be of net benefit to Canada on an exceptional basis. Moreover, any foreign investments with ties to the Russian state would also be viewed as potentially harmful to Canada's national security.
Finally, the third time we updated the Investment Canada Act was when the federal government announced a new policy related to foreign investment in Canadian critical mineral sectors. The policy advised that any investment in the critical mineral sector by state-influenced investors would only be approved as being a net benefit to Canada on an exceptional basis. Then we took quick action to block transactions that would be injurious to Canada's national security, and the government ordered the divestiture of investments by three foreign companies in Canadian critical mineral companies.
This announcement was a change in procedure, and it is also part of our efforts to modernize and improve the administration of Canada's investment review regime. Despite previously having the authority to announce decisions of this nature, the Government of Canada had traditionally not done so.
Again, it is not the first time updating the Investment Canada Act. Indeed, this bill is the latest in a series of actions our government has taken to ensure that we have the right tools and flexibility to protect Canada's national security interests. In turn, I believe that this would ensure an investment climate in Canada that is positive for economic growth both now and in the future.
Let me take a moment to relay some of the great investments we have already made in the area of innovation, science and technology with an eye to the future. For me, these are the types of investments that absolutely set Canada up for success both now and in the future.
In late January, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced an investment of $100 million through the strategic—
1008 words
All Topics
- 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
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
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, 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, in response to the member for Winnipeg North, I will add food as one of the industries that should be on the list.
However, my question is around the issue of assets. The Investment Canada Act focuses on companies, but more and more, we are seeing Canadian companies selling their strategic assets, sometimes to countries that are not favourable to us. A company could remain Canadian but sell off a mine; a technology; or in our intangible asset world, even data.
Could the member speak to the issue that, if the bill goes to committee, which I believe it will, we should be looking at it in terms of the areas of assets in addition to just companies?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting subject. We have to avoid the intellectual shortcuts that people sometimes take in the House.
I sure appreciate the opportunity my colleague gave me. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères gave us a very good example. Rona was purchased by foreign interests, a company called Lowe's, not to name names. It was then resold for a pittance. The company the government had invested in was originally valued at over $3 billion, but it was sold for $400 million.
Our constituents are watching us. They placed their trust in us, and they want us to manage their investment with great care. In this case, it was a total failure.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.
Today, our government is proposing important amendments to modernize this legislation. We will never hesitate to act swiftly and decisively when there is a threat to our national security, and these amendments are at the heart of that effort.
The purpose of this bill is to modernize the Investment Canada Act. The proposed amendments will help make Canada more agile in addressing any threats that may arise from foreign investment, thereby maintaining Canada's position as a top destination for doing business.
Today I want to talk specifically about increasing foreign investment across the entire economy and in certain key sectors of Canada's economy over the past few years. More than ever, we know and recognize the importance of ensuring that we are doing everything we can to promote and foster a strong, innovative green economy. A clear and predictable regulatory regime in Canada is essential for businesses and investors.
As we know, Canada is one of the best places in the world to do business. Businesses that invest here benefit from favourable economic conditions, a stable political climate, safe infrastructure and an innovation-friendly environment. Canada's advantageous position makes companies that do business here more competitive and increases prosperity for all Canadians.
Over the past few years, more and more foreign investors have chosen Canada for its business-friendly environment. The flow of foreign direct investment in Canada has nearly doubled over the past five years.
I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague and esteemed friend from Halifax.
According to the United Nations, in 2021, Canada had the second-largest ratio of foreign direct investment stock to GDP among G20 countries. However, this increase in the volume of foreign investment also comes with certain risks. For example, the number of investments reviewed under the Investment Canada Act also doubled over the past five years. There are also more and more investments related to sensitive technologies, critical minerals and sensitive information.
It is also important to point out the recent increase in national security reviews under the Investment Canada Act. There have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in the previous 10 years. This upward trend is expected to continue, given that Canada is an attractive destination for foreign investors.
The reality is that today's geopolitical dynamic is evolving quickly. Hostile actors could seek to disrupt Canada's economic security through our open market economy. Threats to Canada are changing all the time, and the government must ensure that Canada's foreign investment review regime strikes a good balance between promoting foreign direct investment and protecting Canada's interests and security.
We are all proud that Canada is an open economy and a trading nation. Our country is one of the most attractive destinations for the foreign investments that are necessary to our economic prosperity. In order to ensure that Canada remains an attractive destination for foreign investment, we must have a clear and predictable regulatory regime. That is why this new bill, which modernizes Canada's foreign investment review regime by amending the Investment Canada Act, or ICA, is so important.
The amendments to the ICA will make the investment review process more effective and transparent, while ensuring that the interests and security of all Canadians are better protected. This new Bill C-34 represents the most significant update of the Investment Canada Act since 2009.
Together, these legislative amendments will help ensure that Canada is able to enjoy the economic benefits of foreign investments in all sectors, while strengthening its ability to act quickly and decisively to defend against threats to our national and economic security.
627 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Halifax, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. It is all well and good to use figures that suit the government. We are used to that with the Liberal government.
My colleague mentioned that Canada is ranked second among G20 countries for foreign investment. That is excellent. We attract companies, but we do not invest. Canada is ranked last among G20 countries for investment in business research and development. I also want to remind my colleague that Canada is the only G7 country that has reduced its investment in research and development in the past 20 years.
It is fine to present figures that look good. However, does he agree that Canada has one of the worst records when it comes to investment in business? Even the magazine Science says that researchers do not want to come to Canada because the scientific ecosystem is lacking and there is not enough funding.
What does my colleague have to say about that?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his good question.
We have conflated two issues in this question. One is the issue of domestic investment in research. I agree with my colleague that we can always do better by investing more in Canadian research. That is a very serious pet project of mine, and I work on it weekly.
Coming back to the question of foreign investment, the ranking in the G20 is, in fact, a global ranking. That is something that the government has managed to shift and bring us from the back of the pack up to a very promising place. These seeds that are being planted by the minister through his work will grow and bloom. We will see tremendous foreign investment that will elevate research and productivity, it will create jobs in manufacturing and help us into a just transition.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, New Democrats support the modernization and improvements to the Investment Canada Act. One of the things we are looking for, of course, is the prevention and loss of publicly funded research dollars and development dollars when that money is transferred out of the country.
I reference specifically a case in London, Ontario, where the Conservative government, in 2008, provided funds not only through tax cuts but also research and development dollars to Electro-Motive Canada. Caterpillar bought out the company, moved it to the States and took all that money with it. There was no repayment. There were no consequences, and many Londoners lost their good-paying jobs.
I ask the parliamentary secretary if—
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Abbotsford.
Conservatives have been calling for changes to this act for years. For nearly eight years, the government has ignored the growing role of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises in Canada’s economy. For nearly eight years, the government has failed to take seriously the threat posed by the government of Beijing.
For nearly eight years, the government has sat back passively while Beijing has used ostensibly private corporations as proxies to project its government's power and influence into the Canadian economy. After eight years, the government has finally tabled legislation to strengthen the Investment Canada Act, which is a good thing, but it is something that should have been done years ago.
To assess the government's credibility on the issue, it is important that we examine its track record on protecting Canadians from investment by authoritarian regimes in the Canadian economy. This is a government that, in 2017, failed to conduct a national security review when Beijing-owned Hytera Communications bought Norsat.
The former minister Navdeep Bains and the Prime Minister falsely claimed that a review was done, obfuscating the mandatory 45-day waiting period for approval with an actual, fulsome national security review as defined in the existing act. Even Tom Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, criticized the government for rubber stamping the Hytera deal.
This takeover had serious consequences for Canada’s credibility with our allies. Norsat was an American defence contractor, and Canada allowed this takeover without a proper security review. Such a review was an option, and is an option, for the government under the existing Investment Canada Act, and that option was not undertaken on the Hytera deal.
Since then, Hytera has been banned from doing business in the United States and faces 21 espionage charges. This is the company that the government let into Canada without a national security review on the Norsat deal. The same company then received a contract to supply radio communications work to the RCMP. The same company had a contract with the Canada Border Services Agency for X-ray equipment.
This is the same government that also failed to stop Anbang from buying a chain of seniors homes, as we heard earlier from the NDP. Anbang also bought other buildings, which raised concerns not only about the substandard care that subsequently occurred in the seniors homes it took over, but also about corporate espionage in other buildings that were part of that deal.
This is a government that contracted with a company, whose founder was connected to the very top echelons of the PRC, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 embassies. This is a government that took years to finally ban Huawei from being a supplier of infrastructure to Canada’s 5G network, despite the obvious national security concerns. This reluctance has compromised Canada’s credibility with our Five Eyes intelligence partners. The government’s current industry minister approved the Neo Lithium takeover without a national security review
The opposition has spent years raising important questions about cracks and loopholes in existing laws, while the government claimed that there was no need to change the law until now, and it falsely claimed that it was using the tools available to it to help keep Canadians safe. It did this with such arrogance. It claimed that the opposition was simply playing politics whenever we raised a question about national security.
This is what the Liberals do. They dig in, when they find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, then finally flip while ignoring their past intransigence. This sudden flip, like what we are seeing right now with Bill C-34, on the need to address investment by autocratic, state-owned enterprises, is just like last week’s flip on Bill C-21 when they attempted to ban hunting rifles and shotguns.
Did they admit that the opposition was right all along? No. Did they thank the opposition for raising a point that they made a mistake that needed to be fixed? Did they admit that they were misleading Canadians for months? Did they admit that they were falsely claiming that the opposition was lying about the consequences of their amendment? Did the Minister of Public Safety admit that he was wrong and that he had misled Canadians? Did he apologize for attacking the opposition's motives? No, of course not. That is not what they do.
What they do is attack the motives of those who criticize them. When it becomes absolutely clear, like it is on this issue today of investment by autocratic state-owned enterprises, they might backpedal, but they do not take responsibility. They do not apologize or admit they were wrong.
As the opposition, we are just doing our job when we raise questions about public policy concerns, identify mistakes the government has made and identify shortcomings in existing laws or potential consequences of new laws or policies. The opposition has an ancient and sacred obligation to force the government to try to be better, and I just wish that it would listen from time to time, especially when it comes to national security.
Liberals and Conservatives are probably not very far apart from each other on the role of government when it comes to national security. I would hope that we are not far apart. This is not an ideological difference. We all care about our national security. With that in mind, I have some suggestions and points for Parliament to consider and hopefully also for the government to consider.
The bill would give the minister significantly more power but not necessarily a pathway to the best decisions. One thing this bill would do is shift power from cabinet, from order in council, to direct ministerial decision-making. This may result in faster decision-making but not necessarily better decisions.
I am concerned that the lack of a clear, strong definition of a state-owned enterprise may harm foreign investment in Canada overall without protecting Canadians from hostile foreign governments. The Canadian economy relies on direct foreign investment, and the parliamentary secretary talked about that. We need foreign, private capital from reciprocating open economies, and we have to be careful about what signals the bill sends to global capital markets.
I am disappointed that the bill does not simply allow the government to ban governments of autocratic and hostile regimes, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea or the People's Republic of China, through a simple list. This might be the easiest way to deal with the small number of countries seeking to exert power and influence within the Canadian economy through state-owned enterprises.
I am concerned that the bill does not appear to capture transactions where, rather than shares, a Canadian company sells assets, such as mines, farms, intellectual property and data, to a foreign state-owned enterprise.
I am especially concerned that maintaining the existing $400-million threshold for a mandatory government approval of a foreign takeover leaves the door wide open for the growing concern of Beijing-affiliated entities buying up farms, fishing enterprises, wharves and airport cargo facilities. These enterprises may have diverse ownership, but in aggregate, they have the potential to distort markets for important commodities, such as food. If the buyer of a Canadian company is the Government of China, the threshold for a national security review should be zero dollars, and every transaction of the foreign enterprises owned by the state should be captured.
In short, I do agree that the bill is an attempt to address serious and important policy concerns, and I will support the motion that is before the House to send the bill to committee. My opposition colleagues and I are committed to working with other parliamentarians to make the bill better.
No party has a monopoly on good ideas. This is a great opportunity to show Canadians that parliamentarians can work together and that the result of Parliament's adversarial process is that the best ideas will prevail through debate. As we debate the bill and study it at committee, we can co-operate, get beyond past mistakes and get serious about protecting Canadians from property theft, espionage, intellectual property theft, market distortions and other harms that result when foreign governments that are hostile to Canada's way of life take advantage of our open society and open economy. We are talking about transactions that are not fuelled by the market but by the raw power of a state to exert its influence on the Canadian economy.
Therefore, I will vote for the bill, but it is weak and needs a lot of work.
1460 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I need further clarification of some of the comments made later in the member's speech about there being a zero threshold. I think that might not be the most effective use of everyone's time if we are chasing every dollar investment that is made in Canada. Does the member find that would be time well spent in our system?
63 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
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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
