44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, the minister does have an obligation to review things.
I think back to 10 years ago, and things do change. We could ask how many dollar stores, such as Dollar Tree, were around at the turn of the century and where they are today. Even stores like Giant Tiger have popped up in more communities. I would suggest there are probably more of them than there were Zellers stores.
There is a wide spectrum of things that have to be taken into account that the government is ultimately responsible for. The biggest concern I had was when Loblaws assumed Shoppers 10 years or so ago. That was something I do not know whether I would have approved of. With respect to the Target and Zellers stores, I just do not know enough about the details. All I do know is that there seems to be a lot of retail competition, especially if we factor in the advancement of the Internet.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating Bill 34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, at report stage. We are dealing with a new amendment to this bill from the Conservative side of the House, as well as some housekeeping amendments from the government side.
To make sure everybody watching understands what the Investment Canada Act is about, it deals with the acquisition of Canadian companies by foreign entities: companies and governments that come to Canada to try to acquire our businesses. There is a government process, through Investment Canada, that these entities need to go through with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and cabinet. Through the bill before us, cabinet would be removed from the process. I will speak to this in a moment.
Wayne Gretzky, whom I know everybody here admires, said, “You miss 100% of the shots you don't take”, and this bill fits that description. While it would make administrative amendments and speed up the process a little, it missed the opportunity to look at what is happening in the Canadian economy and deal with the increasing acquisitions of assets and businesses of various sizes, from small businesses worth a few million dollars up to minerals rights and large corporations, by states that are hostile to us. As has been said before, it has been 14 years since the act was amended. A lot has changed in the world, in particular around the way that state-owned enterprises have become extraterritorial in taking over companies around the world for their own economic interests. The Conservatives' challenge with the bill is that it thinks small. It did not use this opportunity to take a shot on net and score a goal by recognizing the change in the global economy and what is happening with the outright sales of Canadian businesses and assets to hostile states.
The minister is the minister of broken bills, which is why we are having to make more amendments to this one. On his other bill, Bill C-27, after a year and a half, he has had to make amendments. Perhaps if he had spent more time here in Canada understanding what was going on, he might have produced better legislation. The Liberals missed the chance to think big and understand what is going on in our economy. What is going on in our economy is what I call the Chinese government cold war. We are in a new cold war. It is not one of bombs and the military in that sense; it is the silent takeover of the economic assets of other countries. This is how China is gaining influence all around the world. We all know about the election interference issues, but those things are perhaps a little more obvious than this is to Canadians, this creeping strategic control by the Communist Party of China of Canada's assets and those of other countries. Other countries have put mechanisms in place within their investment acts to recognize this and prevent it. The bill, as it was introduced in the House and debated at second reading, did not contain any of that.
Small businesses in my riding, such as lobster buyers, are $2-million businesses being bought for $10 million by China. The Chinese government owns a number of lobster businesses in my riding. It is how it is getting control of our seafood assets behind the door. It is doing the same in agriculture. It is buying land and farms in western Canada and mineral rights in our land. It is buying more obvious things, which I will speak to. It is buying companies like the only producing lithium mine in Canada. Therefore, Bill 34 missed a lot and would just make small administrative changes.
The Communist Party of China cold war's being ignored in Canada might be out of incompetence, but it also could be the case, as we know, that the Prime Minister believes that China is his most admired country, so maybe it is more strategic. Let us take a look at the Liberal government's record on this issue.
In 2017, the Liberal government allowed a telecom company from B.C. called Norsat to be acquired by a company called Hytera, which is Chinese-based. Hytera does not make any money. Conservatives demanded, at the time, a full national security review. The Liberal minister of the day refused to do one and approved the acquisition. Lo and behold, in 2022, Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States and was banned from doing business there, but only eight months later, the RCMP in Canada, shockingly, bought telecommunications equipment from Hytera to put in its communications system. When I asked the RCMP, at the industry committee, because it was in all the newspapers, whether its members were aware that eight months before, Hytera had done this and been banned in the U.S., the RCMP, shockingly, said no.
I referred earlier to the Tanco mine, our only producing lithium mine, which was bought by the Sinomine Resource Group, a Chinese-owned mining company. Every ounce of that lithium in our critical minerals industry goes to China.
The record on this is very awkward for the government to hear, but it is a growing concern. It did not take those things into consideration in drafting the bill before us, As a responsible opposition to His Majesty, the Conservatives proposed a number of amendments in committee, and thanks to the support of the other two opposition parties amidst the objections of the Liberals, we made some significant amendments. Those amendments include that with any state-owned enterprise from a country that does not have a bilateral trade relationship with Canada, the threshold for review by the Government of Canada would now be zero dollars. Any transaction over zero dollars would be reviewed, compared to the threshold now, which is $512 million. China is buying a lot of assets for under $512 million, and the threshold would now be zero. The same would apply for a new concept we added, which is that all asset sales would need to be included in that test with a state-owned enterprise.
Today, we are also taking this one step further by saying that the minister has made yet another error. That error was trying to consolidate all his power and ignore his cabinet colleagues. The bill would change the Investment Canada Act process that requires that at the beginning, when an acquisition is made, the minister take his recommendation on how far to go with a national security and net benefit review into a study. The bill before us says that he would not have to do that anymore and that he could decide on his own, that at the end of the process, whatever the results are, he would come back and say he will decide whether or not he goes to cabinet with the results.
Removing cabinet from the decision-making process would mean that we would not get the breadth of experience of people around the cabinet table and that we also would not get the breadth of experience from regional perspectives. For example, there have been companies bought in Quebec. If an industry minister is from Ontario and our public safety minister is from out west, they would make the decision on their own without any input from Quebec. I suspect that the Bloc Québécois would be opposed to that issue and would want to see Quebec representation in those decision-making processes, but the bill before us has the potential to eliminate that part of it.
We are proposing common sense Conservative amendments, as we did in committee. Thankfully we upped the ante of the bill and made it more than an administrative bill such that it would deal with the serious international challenges we had, through the four amendments that were accepted. By the way, there are two national tests in there. One is on national security and the other is on the net benefit to Canada. Conservatives in committee added a third: if a company has been convicted of bribery or corruption, the minister would now have to take that into consideration in deciding whether to approve the acquisition. It would add much benefit, but, for some reason, Liberals did not think it was worthy when they voted against it.
We believe that Conservatives have improved the bill dramatically. We are trying to improve it again in the spirit of good public policy for Canada and protecting our economy against hostile interests, which the Liberals seem not to care about. I urge the House, including all members from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the government, to recognize that cabinet's decision-making process is essential to getting the full breadth of things, and I urge members to vote for our amendment.
1497 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we recognize that foreign interference takes many different forms. One of them is through investments. I am glad that it appears, from what I can tell, the members of the Conservative Party are in fact supporting the principle of the legislation.
That being said, I anticipate that the Conservative Party would like to see this legislation pass through all readings before Christmas. Is that a fair assessment?
An hon. member: What year?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues, in response to that, asked, “What year?” That is funny.
Yes, absolutely, the principle of the bill originally was an improvement of the current Investment Canada Act. We have improved it dramatically over what the government presented, so obviously we will be voting for the amendments we made to improve the bill. We will have a robust debate at both report stage and third reading to give members a chance to speak about this important strategic issue for Canada.
I hope government members will support my amendment today to ensure that we return to cabinet decision-making processes.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, who is my Standing Committee on Industry and Technology co-chair. I have to say that I am liking him more and more. We have been working together for a good year now, and I appreciate how thorough he is and how creative he can be. He stands up for small businesses, and he has a good understanding of Quebec's economy.
The member proposed an amendment. My immediate reaction is that I am in favour of the minister having enough time to really think things through if necessary. It is no good announcing public consequences before doing due diligence. I would like to give him a chance to go into more detail about his amendment. Maybe I will give him one last chance to convince me that, from a Quebec point of view, this amendment makes sense.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue provides a lot of great input at the industry committee, and I appreciate that we have a lot of thoughtful discussions.
I agree that we should not create artificial time when we are dealing with very critical acquisitions. Whether it is a private sector company from around the world taking over Rona, for example, or a state-owned enterprise, the minister needs to not be restricted by arbitrary timelines so we can get the adequate national security net benefit and can analyze whether they have been convicted of corruption or bribery, thanks to the Conservatives, who put that in. Those are considerations the government should review in a thorough manner, not necessarily feeling that it has to rush things through.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague works really hard at committee and comes well prepared.
I understand the amendment the member is putting forth right now with regard to the consolidation of the minister's powers and not having secondary support from cabinet. Maybe the member wants to elaborate more on that. Is this because of the previous Conservative industry minister, Maxime Bernier? Is that what this amendment is about? Is it a Maxime Bernier amendment?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, no, I named this the Navdeep Bains amendment, as he did not review anything that went before him, and particularly not large companies from China. He approved them all without national security briefs. Now we know why Navdeep Bains did that: It was so he could secure himself a big, fat job on Bay Street, first with CIBC and now with the most expensive telephone provider in the world, Rogers, where he sits atop the tower talking about the things he used to regulate and let through. It is shocking, really, that Liberals would sell themselves for a job.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the acquisitions that I wish had been reviewed, which I do not think Bill C-34, even with amendments, would catch, was Paper Excellence buying up the pulp and paper mills of this country: all of Catalyst, all of Resolute and, in the member's home province, starting with Northern Pulp. It looks like it was all financed by the China Development Bank. What does the member think about that?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if an acquisition is financed or controlled by a Chinese entity, thanks to the Conservatives, there is now a change to the act that says anything over zero dollars is reviewable by Investment Canada.
I appreciate the hon. member for bringing that up. It gave me the opportunity to once again explain how important our amendment and improvement of the act are when looking out for those things.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the interpreters that I will not try to fit my speech into the six minutes, although I think I could. The fact that I will not have to take questions immediately afterwards may save me from getting a question like the one my colleague from Windsor West asked. I will prepare accordingly.
I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34, which has just passed an important milestone. I understand that my colleagues have identified other amendments at this stage, and I will inform the House of the Bloc Québécois's position in due course.
This bill represents the first substantial review of the Investment Canada Act since 2009, when the government introduced a mechanism for assessing the national security implications of foreign investments. Essentially, it aims to strengthen the government's powers to monitor foreign investments that could compromise Canada's national security
Bill C‑34 introduces seven major changes: a new requirement to provide notice of certain investments prior to their implementation in designated sectors; ministerial authorization to extend national security reviews of investments; harsher penalties for contraventions; ministerial authorization to impose conditions prior to the national security review period; ministerial authorization to allow undertakings that mitigate national security risks; improved information disclosure with international counterparts; and new rules to protect information in the course of judicial reviews.
These undeniably necessary changes reflect the logical evolution of an increasingly interconnected world. Foreign investment plays a vital role in economic development, not only in Canada, but also, and especially, in Quebec.
Over the past few months, the members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology examined several important issues related to these foreign investments. We held no less than 12 meetings, during which we heard from nearly 20 witnesses. Their testimony informed our debates and contributed to our collective understanding. We heard valid concerns about the potential vulnerability of our businesses and our sovereignty to ill-intentioned foreign investments. This strengthened our conviction that Bill C‑34 is an important first step.
When it came time to consider each member's amendments, we each addressed aspects that seemed important to us. I was particularly anxious to ensure that Quebec's economy would not be hurt. I thought about several situations where investments shaped Quebec. I wish the federal government had done some thinking as well, in response to the recommendations of the Bélanger-Campeau commission, and that it had opened up certain sections of the act to make amendments to better protect Quebec's leading companies.
The Conservatives tried to make changes that probably would have had disastrous consequences for Quebec's aerospace industry. They suggested drastically limiting the ability of foreign state-owned enterprises to invest in critical sectors and authorizing such operations only with the members of the anglophone Five Eyes, meaning the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
Let us look at the practical consequences of the Conservatives' proposal. Take, for example, the takeover of Bombardier's C Series by Airbus. That transaction, which was completed successfully, is critical to our aerospace cluster. Airbus is a company owned by the French and German governments, which are neither American nor anglophone. If amendments CPC-5 and CPC-6 had been in effect at the time, that transaction would have been prohibited, which would have had disastrous consequences for our aerospace sector. That is what the Conservatives' aerospace policies are like at times.
I appreciated the government's openness to considering clarifying that purchasing a company's assets is the same as purchasing the company itself, and so the transaction is subject to the act. This clarification was necessary, especially when it comes to intangible assets such as intellectual property patents, where there was a gap in the previous legislation. It is crucial that our laws protect the national interest, including intellectual property.
On some amendments, our position was more nuanced. I supported the idea of taking intellectual property into account during reviews of transactions, because it enhances our national security and protects our strategic assets.
However, we must keep in mind that Bill C‑34 seeks mainly to align our security policies with those of the United States, an essential prerequisite for Canada to be included in the U.S. industrial modernization strategy, in particular the development of electrification.
The proof is that, immediately after Bill C-34 was introduced, the Americans lifted the most protectionist measures through the Inflation Reduction Act, which Joe Biden announced just before his visit to Ottawa.
Restrictions remain in future incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles, but these provisions will only come into effect later, when current investments have increased the supply of cars enough to meet demand. There is every indication that they will harmonize this with the industrial component.
As a result, Canada's agreements with the U.S. include specific provisions on personal information in the defence sector, allowing Canadian companies to bid on Pentagon contracts for the first time since 1956. Since these contracts give access to U.S. defence secrets, the U.S. government asks for information on our companies' personnel in order to conduct security checks. We have to be careful not to lose this privilege.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that other ideas emerged during our work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
I will continue my speech after question period.
924 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:00:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, October 24 was World Polio Day.
As a Rotarian and proud member of the Rotary Club of Orléans, I want to acknowledge the vital work Rotary clubs across Canada and internationally are doing to raise awareness of the importance of polio vaccination to protect every child from this devastating disease. It is a day to celebrate the many parents, professionals and volunteers whose contributions make polio eradication achievable.
Yesterday, I also had the privilege of welcoming on the Hill nine members of the Orléans Youth Council. Their passion and insights were truly inspiring, shaping engaging conversations that offered valuable perspectives. They shared with me their heartfelt preoccupation regarding the conflict in the Middle East. It surely reinforced my belief in the power of youth engagement and reaffirmed our dedication to empowering them as not only the leaders of tomorrow but the leaders of today.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:01:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride I rise today to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Optimist Club of Cornwall. Seventy-five years is not just a number. It is a testament to its longevity, hard work and dedication to our community.
I have had the pleasure to see it all first-hand, from Cornwall's Ribfest to the Canada Day breakfast, Youth Achievement Awards, toy drives and organizing various youth sport leagues. This is just a small example of the great work Optimists have been doing day in, day out.
Recently, when we were cutting the ribbon on the new playground equipment at Optimist Park, the members were already sharing with me the next two or three projects they wanted to get under way. That just shows the energy and the dedication the Optimists have maintained in Cornwall for 75 years and counting.
To the members, all the volunteers, families, supporters and donors, I thank them and hope that same energy is able to continue for the next 75 years. I congratulate them.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:02:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, across Canada, there are phenomenal organizations advocating for and supporting people with disabilities. A great example in the developmental sector is Christian Horizons. Since 1965, it has helped people with disabilities accomplish their goals. I became familiar with its work as Ontario's minister of community and social services and met its CEO, Janet Noel-Annable.
It recently changed its name to Karis Disability Services. This new name will help people know everyone belongs. Karis is one of many exceptional organizations in Canada's developmental sector making a difference in people's lives. For decades, the sector has been advocating for a disability benefit to provide people with disabilities with greater financial security.
Our government took action. In June, the Canada Disability Benefit Act received royal assent. We are working with the sector to co-design the benefit, and I am hopeful it will make an important difference in the communities these extraordinary organizations serve.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:03:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture and agri-food sector is a major economic driver in Canada, employing 2.3 million people. This growing sector alone represents 7% of our GDP. Aliments Ouimet‑Cordon Bleu, a Montreal company known for its Clark and Paris Pâté brands, is a major player in this industry.
This year, Cordon Bleu is celebrating its 90th anniversary, while also expanding into the U.S. market and seeing strong growth nationally. In addition to this success, Cordon Bleu is racking up numerous honours. In the spring, it won Quebec SME of the year at the Mercuriades gala of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec.
I salute and congratulate the leaders of Cordon Bleu, who are here today, and I encourage all Canadians to keep supporting our dynamic agri-food businesses.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:04:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of failure, the Prime Minister must be really proud of himself. His NDP-Liberal government's food security policy, food banks, is working so well visits to food banks are up 32% from March 2022, a 78% increase for the same month in 2019, and winter is coming.
Canadians are bearing the brunt of years of his blowing the bank and fuelling inflation. How does this out-of-touch Prime Minister respond with the news that food bank usage is up? He blames everyone else.
It is not the fault of the farmers and grocers that carbon taxes drive up costs. It is not the fault of the truckers who deliver our food to the grocery stores. It is certainly not the fault of Canadians who find, after paying all the carbon taxes, there is nothing left to put food on the table.
In a country endowed with as many natural resources as Canada, it is a disgrace that the need for food banks is soaring. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:05:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 2023 marks the 75th anniversary of Patro Roc‑Amadour.
In Limoilou, the Patro is more than an institution. It is truly a pillar of our community. The Patro serves a wide range of needs through its recreation and sports programs, its community support service, its aquatics programs and its adaptive services. All of these services contribute to the Patro's mission, which is to serve users of every age. It is reassuring to know that Patro Roc‑Amadour is there to meet the growing needs of our community. Last year alone, more than 450 caring volunteers gave the Patro over 35,000 hours of their time.
I congratulate the organization's tireless executive director, Clément Lemieux, for his outstanding work.
I congratulate the Patro on its 75 years of service, and we wish it another 75 at least.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:06:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, you will recall in the last federal election Conservatives from coast to coast to coast campaigned and said, “We support a price on pollution.” Then came the shiny new leader of the Conservative Party and the big flip-flop occurred.
Fast-forward to today, and we hear the Conservatives doubling down. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, they say, is a bad idea. Talk about being reckless. Talk about taking a risk with Canadians.
There are over 46 projects today. We are talking about an investment of close to $28 billion, and almost two-thirds of that is through private or non-Government of Canada funding. They are putting jobs at risk. They are putting good green jobs and the future of many of our municipalities at risk.
I have a question for the leader of the Conservative Party. Will he do the honourable thing and do another flip-flop and support the Canada Infrastructure Bank?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:07:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month.
I want to highlight the brave feminists who fought for abortion access in our country and the women who were forced to give their children up for adoption in postwar Canada.
Earlier this year, I read the book Looking for Jane by Heather Marshall. While the book is historical fiction, it includes real events like the Abortion Caravan that descended on Parliament Hill in the 1970s and laid the groundwork for the removal of abortion from the Criminal Code. The book also shares the heartbreaking stories of unmarried women who were housed in so-called maternity homes and were forced to put their children up for adoption, which was the subject of a Senate study entitled “The Shame is Ours”.
We still have much to do in this country to ensure abortion is accessible to all who choose it, and that forced adoptions are recognized in Canada for the trauma they caused young mothers and their children.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:09:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government's incompetent financial management, they are foisting two carbon taxes on us, backed by the Bloc Québécois, which wants to drastically increase the carbon tax.
More and more Quebeckers are struggling to make ends meet. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. More and more Quebeckers are forced to sleep in their cars. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. More and more Quebeckers are forced to turn to food banks. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. More and more Quebeckers are forced to make tough choices in order to pay the mortgage on their house. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly.
Inflation has hit Quebec the hardest over the last four months. The Bloc Québécois supports the Liberal government twice on the carbon tax. Let us not be lulled into complacency by the Bloc Québécois anymore, but let us worry about the Bloc Québécois, which is refusing to hear from the RCMP commissioner at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics by voting again with the Liberal-NDP government.
Quebeckers want a chance to choose a new prime minister, but the Bloc Québécois is holding up the return to common sense.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
