44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 3, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/3/23 12:05:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Whitby for his strong, unwavering advocacy for rural issues.
We know that investments toward high-speed Internet are transformational for improving the lives of rural Canadians, whether they are working from home, accessing health care and education or, frankly, keeping in tough. Today, 93.5% of Canadians have access to high-speed affordable Internet. In 2014, just 79% of Canadians had access. As my colleague said, we are well under way to meeting our commitment of having everybody connected by 2030. When rural Canada succeeds, all of Canada succeeds.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:06:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, deep seabed mining threatens ocean ecosystems. Rather than taking a stand on deep seabed mining like France, Germany, Spain and others, the Liberals prefer to support Canadian mining companies such as The Metals Company, creating industrial-scale mining sites on the deep seabed. Meanwhile, the lives and livelihoods of indigenous and coastal communities around the world that rely upon the health of the oceans may be threatened.
Will the government stand up today for the safety and protection of our oceans and demand a moratorium on international deep seabed mining?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:06:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canada's position is that the seabed and the marine environment require effective protection through rigorous regulatory structures, applying a precautionary ecosystem-based approach, using science-based and transparent management and ensuring effective compliance.
As the situation evolves, our government will continue to work with scientists and will work with international partners. We all want to do what is right for Canada.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:07:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the pandemic has been devastating for artists and the organizations that support them. Ticket sales for live orchestras, like the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony, are still an unsustainable 33% lower than before the pandemic. The government ended pandemic relief funds for arts organizations, but they still need our help.
After months of advocacy, the minister said he would monitor the situation and that is not good enough. Can the KW Symphony count on the government's support in budget 2023?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:07:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know that the performing arts were the first impacted by the pandemic and will be the last to recover. We are aware of the situation the hon. member has brought attention to, and I know he has met with the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the file. We will work with this organization to find a solution to the issues it has raised.
The government has been there for our culture sector since 2015 after cuts from the previous Conservative government. We have been there from the start of the pandemic. We are there for our arts and culture sector.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to rise and present petition e-4122, which has received a whopping 20,000-plus signatures from Canadians. That is a significant number of signatures.
The petition refers to the government's dog rescue importation ban. It asks the government to work with affected dog rescues and animal rights advocates to ensure that government policy on dog importation keeps Canadians safe without increasing the number of animals in shelters or on streets globally, and to have some compassion and allow dogs into this country that could be reunited with very generous Canadians.
I present this petition on behalf of those 20,000-plus people.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:10:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition from concerned Canadians who note that the Russian Federation's illegal invasion of Ukraine has heightened concerns around the world about the threat of nuclear war for the first time in a very long time.
The petitioners point out that we have made many efforts over the years in nuclear non-proliferation and that particularly recently, we had a historic treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons that entered into force in January 2021. The petitioners also note the Government of Canada is not participating in the treaty and has even failed to show up as an observer to the negotiations and the first meeting of the parties.
These citizens and residents of Canada call on the Government of Canada to show a leadership role and look at our historic role in that regard. They call on Canada to join our allies, such as Germany and Norway, in at least participating as observers to the ongoing work of the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:11:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition today on behalf of residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. Due to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, they are asking for a number of actions. They are calling on the government to, first, extend open work permit time limits set through the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel measures; second, extend working visa and student visa time limits through the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel measures; and last, offer a simplified path to permanent residency for Ukrainians who wish to stay in Canada.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of residents from Kelowna—Lake Country and the surrounding area in relation to the government bill, Bill C-21, on firearms. It is quite lengthy, but I will go right to the asks of the government. They are asking for the government to, first, stop targeting law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers with gun legislation; second, immediately withdraw the amendments tabled on November 22, 2022, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; and last, withdraw the existing bill, Bill C-21, and restart consultations with the firearms community, firearms owners and public safety experts.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:13:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 1113, originally tabled on January 30, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Question No. 1113—
Questioner: Dan Albas
With regard to contracts that were cancelled by the government since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) how many contracts have been cancelled; (b) what is the total amount paid out in cancellation fees or penalties; and (c) what are the details of all such cancellations, including, for each, the (i) date the contract was signed, (ii) date the contract was cancelled, (iii) vendor, (iv) value, (v) description of goods or services, (vi) reason for the cancellation, (vii) cancellation fee or other similar type of cost to the government?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 12:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech and for the work that he does on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. His colleague from Calgary Nose Hill got us thinking about the Investment Canada Act two years ago. My colleague from Windsor West remembers it well.
One of the recommendations that was made, which was mainly ignored by the government, sought for more transparency from the minister when making decisions under the Investment Canada Act.
I would like him to tell us whether such transparency is necessary when it comes to this act. What are the conditions being imposed on businesses in terms of investments in particular?
I remember when Rona was sold to Lowe's. The minister never disclosed the conditions. Today, Lowe's is no longer around and we have not seen any investments. The government did not do anything to protect our head offices.
What can be done to protect our head offices other than hoping for more transparency from the minister about what he is doing? Is the member in favour of more transparency?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work over the years on the industry committee and that particular report. It is a very good report. I would encourage all members to read it. I support all of the recommendations in that report.
I think we can work together when Bill C-34 comes to the industry committee, to work on that transparency. Reasons why an acquisition is reviewed and reasons for accepting or rejecting it by the cabinet, the Governor in Council and the minister are things that should be published with the decision each time. That way, Canadians would be able to fully understand the rationale behind what sometimes look like very odd things, such as when we lose very important Canadian-headquartered businesses to other jurisdictions, particularly when they are, in the case of some acquisitions, countries not as aligned with our goals as we would like.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who did a really good job on the report at committee. I want to congratulate the member here. He has come onto the industry committee just recently and has done a great job. I am really pleased he has actually researched the report. I wish that the government had done that as well.
I really appreciate the fact that we are actually going to bring some of these recommendations forward.
The takeover of Rona, and now Lowe's having some questionable ownership in the United States, brings an important example. I just want to reflect further on that, because when we think about national security, it is also about competition and about product availability.
With the closures of stores, especially with regard to pricing and other things, from wood and lumber to other things we require, we need to look through a different lens about what this means for Canada, because now we have lost an iconic entity.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I mentioned in my speech, and hopefully one we can explore in committee, is this issue of whether the net benefit test is being used well enough.
We have a lot of corporate concentration in this country. We have oligopolies in many of our industries, and this is one of the reasons why we rank last by the OECD in productivity as a country. The OECD actually projects, going forward, that we are going to be the least productive of the 20 OECD countries in the world.
That is why this bill is so important, that we get to study not just the security issues but also the issues of net benefit and corporate concentration that we have in this country.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured that you recognized me. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your colleagues from Joliette.
I will not be sharing my time today, but I would like to take a brief moment to recognize the work of parliamentary interns. I was privileged to have Sonja Tilro on my team for several weeks. She has done an incredible job, and this speech will be one of her final contributions to my team. I would like to acknowledge this contribution, as well as that of all parliamentary interns, who are distinct assets who add value to our Parliament.
Today we have before us Bill C-34, a government bill that seeks to amend the Investment Canada Act. This is the first major amendment to the Investment Canada Act since 2009, when the government introduced a national security review process for foreign investments. There have been no other proposals since then, other than a few concurrence amendments when entering into trade agreements.
In essence, Bill C-34 increases the government's ability to better control foreign investments, but only those that could harm national security. It makes no changes to the economic benefit part of the act. The issue of truly modernizing the Investment Canada Act is being avoided yet again and major issues will not be addressed this time either.
Bill C‑34 essentially makes seven changes to make the review process more effective. We are pleased to see that the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was taken into account and inspired these changes, which are the following: new filing requirement prior to the implementation of investments in prescribed business sectors; authority for the minister to extend the national security review of investments; stronger penalties for non-compliance; authority for the minister to impose conditions during a national security review and so on.
The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑34, which, in our opinion, improves oversight of investments that may be injurious to national security. However, the current version of Bill C‑34 simply does not include enough protection for our businesses in Quebec and the government has missed a golden opportunity to strengthen our business network and prevent our resources and capital from going offshore. To achieve this necessary energy transition, we need every economic tool at our disposal.
Is it still possible to add elements in order to better protect head offices and send a clear message that a multilateral agreement could be considered to meet the need, expressed by Quebec, of controlling the development of its economy and protecting businesses in the strategic niches it has created?
The Investment Canada Act was passed in 1985 and requires that the government ensure that important foreign investments are “to be of net benefit” to Canada before being approved. In 2009, the act gained a section on national security that gives the government the power to block a foreign investment if it is deemed to be injurious to national security. We are talking about investments in particularly critical sectors, especially those made by foreign governments or companies linked to those governments. Bill C‑34, introduced on December 7, 2022, by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, has improved the reviews and increased the minister's powers, but only for investments related to national security.
My speech will identify a few elements that could be studied seriously by the committee when we get to that stage of the legislative process.
A few members are here today to read what is in the bill dealing with investment in Canada. What tools will allow development to occur with confidence while maintaining some control over foreign investment? How important is the protection of intellectual property? What commitments and conditions are we prepared to demand of investors in order to promote the creation of wealth here, in Quebec?
We are preparing our future in the image of the Quebec model, and we simply want the federal government to recognize this. The federal government's foreign investment policy these past years can be summarized in two words: deregulation and permissiveness.
The policy provides for increased scrutiny when national security is at stake, but otherwise the floodgates are open. The fact is, all other foreign investments are approved virtually automatically and without review. Statutory review mechanisms, which the government readily insists on protecting in every trade agreement that it signs, are essentially rendered ineffective.
I want to come back to the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
In the Bloc Québécois' supplementary report, which was submitted at the same time as the standing committee's, we identified the main elements that are essential to strengthening Quebec's economic development model.
Let us talk about how the Conservative and Liberal governments have handled the threshold at which agreements must be submitted for review under the Investment Canada Act over the past 10 years.
In 2013, the Conservative government set the tone when it announced plans to raise the threshold at which the government evaluates whether foreign investments are actually beneficial. Then in 2015, the Liberal government sped things up.
Do these policies have a real impact? Yes. Over the course of that decade, things went off the rails. Every time we had a chance to study this issue in committee, witnesses sounded the alarm about the flaws in the current act. The threshold is not high enough, and too many agreements simply do not get reviewed.
The result is striking. Between 2009 and 2019, the proportion of foreign investments subject to review fell from 10% to just 1%. My colleagues heard that right. Under the current rules, 99% of foreign investments are now automatically authorized without a review. That is why the Bloc Québécois demanded that the department lower the threshold.
The Quebec model includes businesses that are much smaller in size and number. The department must lower the threshold in order to stop this transfer of our intellectual property and talent into the hands of companies headquartered outside of Quebec. This problem comes at a bad time. Over the past 30 years, the nature of foreign investment in OECD countries has changed. New investment is down, while investments in the form of mergers and acquisitions of existing companies are up.
We understand that we need to get on the same footing as our trading partners. If there is one thing the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us, it is that global supply chains are fragile and that it is unwise to be completely dependent on decisions made abroad.
The new review process is essentially the same as the one in the United States. Adopting it increases the chances of the Americans continuing to consider us as a reliable partner. That is a condition for being a well-integrated preferred supplier in their supply chains.
In a context where protectionism is on the rise among our neighbours to the south, which could seriously upset our economy, it is an important asset and the Bloc Québécois applauds it. The Standing Committee on International Trade is currently looking at the possible effects of U.S. policies in favour of the electrification of transportation that have the potential of excluding our companies that specialize in this, including electric vehicle batteries. In addition to the new guideline on critical minerals which is likely to diminish China's footprint in this sector, Bill C‑34 is reassuring, which is a good thing.
Critical minerals and the electrification of transportation also raise important issues. As in other countries, there are good reasons to protect our businesses and encourage them to set up near the resources they need. We cannot blame other countries for taking the opportunity to get their hands on our businesses, provided a comprehensive and thorough review has been done.
The region of Abitibi‑Témiscamingue is no exception. We are aware that our region will be coveted for its minerals such as rare earth, lithium, copper, nickel and gold. The region is full of critical minerals all the way to northern Quebec.
We also have one of the best universities, Université du Québec en Abitibi‑Témiscamingue or UQAT, which has international experts and top-notch programs. We want to play a leading role and really succeed in this field. For my part, I foresee the creation of a centre of excellence for critical and strategic minerals.
It is now time to create the necessary jobs and to undertake the long-term economic and industrial transformation towards a carbon-neutral future. The time has come to create a future where Quebec will be a global leader in clean technologies by focusing on essential minerals and the development of an innovative and sustainable ecosystem for the production of batteries, or what I call the green mine.
Bill C‑34 is in addition to the new critical minerals guidelines that the government adopted on October 28, 2022, and that apply to 31 minerals that are critical for the sustainable economic prosperity of Canada and its allies. By supporting the new government guidelines for these 31 critical minerals, more strategic projects for resource regions will be developed.
This is a real opportunity to prepare our own future through the creation of technological goods and the electrification of transportation. I am referring to the minerals necessary for the production of technological goods and the electrification of transportation. There is a real opportunity to position Canada and Quebec as leaders in exploration, extraction, processing and production, and to make Canada a leader in the production of batteries and other digital and clean technologies, and to develop an innovative and sustainable battery industry ecosystem in Quebec and Canada, including making Canada and Quebec a world leader in battery manufacturing, recycling and reuse.
In those areas, an investment from a foreign government or affiliated company will be considered a disadvantage from the outset. It will be subject to national security review and will likely be denied, except in exceptional circumstances.
The burden of proof is reversed here. The investment is refused outright, unless the investor can demonstrate that it is truly beneficial. The government recently blocked three mining investment projects by applying this directive.
That said, Bill C‑34 and the new Canadian critical minerals strategy should put the brakes on Chinese companies taking our resources. It should put a stop to our industries being so dependent on foreign resources.
Let us talk about security. While we are currently talking about the risks that Chinese companies represent to our security and our technological choices in telecommunications, it is just as important to assess the risk involved in foreign investors taking our resources away from our industries. By thoroughly and diligently reviewing the economic and security components of every investment, we can capitalize on those who would bring us prosperity and avoid those who would put us at risk.
It also makes it possible for us to keep pace with our allies, particularly the United States. It guarantees that we are considered a reliable, preferred partner in trade and in the development of critical mineral supply chains and that we can continue to be a part of the green future.
The amendments to the act make the national security review process more efficient by giving the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, in consultation with the Department of National Security, the power to make an order extending the national security review referred to in section 25.3.
In the past, an order from the Governor in Council was needed at this step of the process. By eliminating the need for an order from the Governor in Council, the partners responsible for intelligence security will have more time to complete the intelligence analyses, which are becoming increasingly complex.
The protection of our intellectual property is another important issue. The amendments to the act put in place a pre-implementation filing requirement for some investments in designated sectors. That will enable the government to have an overview of the investments made in sectors where the investor could obtain sensitive assets and information, intellectual property or trade secrets, for example, immediately after an investment is made.
Now the government will be able to prevent that kind of irreparable damage. Investors operating in designated sectors will have to submit notice within the timelines specified in the regulations. The bill also provides for better information exchange with international counterparts. Amendments to the act facilitate international information exchange and authorize the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to disclose information about an investor to allied countries to support their intelligence analyses and national security reviews if the minister deems it appropriate to do so.
Previously, information about a given investor was considered privileged and could not be disclosed. This amendment will enable Canada to better protect itself against investors that may be actively seeking the same technology in several countries or when there is a shared national security interest. That said, Canada would of course not communicate that information for reasons of confidentiality or any other reason.
The government's blind spot is the preservation of our economic levers. All these developments are good, but they are incomplete. The Bloc Québécois wants the government to do much more. Last year, according to the annual report the department's investment division tabled in Parliament in October, foreigners submitted 1,255 proposed investments totalling $87 billion.
Of those 1,255 investment projects, only 24, or 2%, were considered to have national security implications and would have been covered by the new rules contained in Bill C‑34. The remaining 1,221 foreign investments remain subject to the old lax rules and almost all were automatically approved without review. Only eight, or less than 1%, were reviewed to determine whether they actually provided a net economic benefit.
Over the years, the act has been weakened. The threshold below which the government does not even review the investment continues to rise. Virtually all investments pass through like clockwork without the government being given the authority, under the Investment Canada Act, to assess whether it is beneficial.
The current act, passed in the mid-1980s, assumes that full liberalization of investment is good, that just about any foreign investment is good, regardless of the loss of decision-making levers and head offices that it entails, the resulting weakening of Montreal's financial sector, the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers, the possible land grab, the loss of control over our natural resources and so on.
By focusing solely on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. For that reason, we invite the government to table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act and not just the part on national security. National security is a good thing, but so is economic security. In particular, the government must lower considerably the threshold for the approval of foreign investments without review.
We must be open to foreign investment because it is a vector of growth and development that we cannot allow ourselves to ignore. Global competition is fierce. We have a significant competitive advantage. We are reliable and our carbon footprint is by far the best thanks to our hydroelectric power.
Furthermore, we all want to support our domestic corporations and to help them grow and create wealth for Canadians. Our goal is to protect our companies and head offices, which we know are important decision-makers.
I want to reiterate that Quebec's economy is and will always be open to the world. Openness toward foreign investment is essential for enabling Quebec to access major trade networks, which is crucial for guaranteeing the prosperity of our relatively small-scale economy.
However, we must be careful about opening our doors to investors. To date, the Investment Canada Act has not helped. We are encumbered by an investment act that has been watered down in many ways since the 1980s.
The total market liberalization that plagued the 1980s had a negative impact on the quality of our local economies and resulted in the weakening of financial centres like Montreal, the withdrawal of decision-making power and tools from head offices, land takeovers, and loss of control over our own resources.
As Jacques Parizeau wrote in 2001, even before China joined the World Trade Organization, “we do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves”.
Since the Quiet Revolution, the Government of Quebec has gained significant economic and financial leverage enabling it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism—the intensity of which varies from one government to the next—that gives Quebeckers greater control over their economy.
Unfortunately, as the Investment Canada Act was weakened over the years, the levee crumbled. We have to convince the government to insert new provisions into the act to shore it up.
This is a welcome development, but it is not enough. Major investments from corporations with ties to the Chinese government have shifted things. Canada is starting to realize that it needs better oversight over foreign investments and has to make sure they are beneficial before authorizing them. This bill signals an awareness that was a long time coming, and the Bloc Québécois is happy about that.
2938 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when I look at Bill C-34, I see legislation that is in Canada's best interest. I think of our economy generally and Canada's dependency on international trade. There is a lot of investment coming into and going out of the country. This legislation is there to protect the interests of our nation from a safety perspective. However, it is also there to ensure that we continue to build our economic links throughout the world and have investments that advance our communities, no matter where they are in Canada.
Could the member provide his thoughts regarding whether the Bloc party intends to support Bill C-34?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
