44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair.
The Investment Canada Act was in need of a review, especially when one thinks of businesses in the context of COVID‑19, like our aerospace businesses. There is an issue. Are we protecting them enough? I do not think we talked enough about thresholds at committee. The government did not exactly show it was open to reviewing these thresholds.
At what point do we start an inquiry? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say. Should we have dug deeper into this to make sure we could protect our SMEs, which are the backbone of the Quebec and Canadian economy?
116 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, 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 2:44:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the member is talking about is 18 days during the holidays, but 250,000 businesses are going to go bankrupt. The government is not only unwilling to let them defer payments, but it is also unwilling to speak to them directly.
That is not what being financially responsible looks like. That is not what being flexible looks like. That is not what it means to deliver for Quebeckers. Our economy has the most SMEs. Our entrepreneurs are worried. Our people are the ones the Liberals are abandoning. No government in the world would let 250,000 businesses close without doing something.
When will the Liberals finally take action?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some of the other ideas that emerged during the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. One of the most important changes for which the Bloc Québécois vigorously advocated involves transparency provisions.
I know how important transparency is to you, Mr. Speaker. We could have included other provisions, but I sense that you are particularly attentive to transparency. It is an important concern that witnesses have mentioned, and it has been reflected in the technical documents that have been presented to us.
I stressed the need for greater transparency in the national security decision-making mechanisms. I went to the right school, some might say, and I think I have colleagues who have influenced me, in particular the member for Joliette, whom I would like to recognize.
This includes more information from agencies responsible for decisions related to national security. It is a legitimate request to want to understand how the decisions are made and what criteria are taken into account.
The minister's obligation to publicly present his or her decisions is significant progress in fostering public understanding. This will allow citizens, businesses and stakeholders to better understand the process and the motivations underlying national security decisions.
We remain firmly committed to acting in the best interest of the Quebec nation, ensuring that our national interests are preserved in harmony with our democratic values and our quest for an open and transparent governance.
We think it is a shame that the government restricted and limited the amendments to Bill C‑34 to the single issue of national security related to foreign investments.
I think there was some consensus around the table with respect to the fact that the government missed an opportunity to review the thresholds for mergers and acquisitions, especially when it comes to guaranteeing that the foreign investments have a net benefit for Canada.
We therefore support this bill and will continue to demand loud and clear that the government introduce a new bill to also review the other sections of the Investment Canada Act.
That said, it was high time to address national security issues related to foreign investment.
375 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in support of the bill. However, the main amendments that we wanted to include were not compatible with the bill. From the outset, when we were talking about modernizing the Investment Canada Act, the Liberals should have included this notion of revising thresholds.
Let us take COVID‑19, for example, with our airlines. When the value of our airlines plummeted to the point where they finally fell below the mandatory review threshold, which was triggered, foreign companies—Chinese, American and others—were able to buy up flagships like Air Transat for a song.
The consequences would have been disastrous. What we need to do with the Investment Canada Act is to go deeper into the issue of thresholds. All the same, I am delighted that transparency has increased. Let us take the example of Lowe's, a classic in Quebec, with the sale of Rona. We never knew what the compromises were. Five years on, we realize that these compromises may not have been respected.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for speaking French and for the effort that she makes. I commend her for that.
That is indeed a major problem. How can we bring in foreign capital to grow our economy? What was of particular interest to me in the context, and I had the support of my Conservative colleagues in that regard, was how to regulate critical and strategic minerals, particularly when it comes to the electrification of transport. How can we be sure to maintain ownership of our critical resources for the sake of national security? About 30 of them were targeted, including lithium.
Imagine if our companies had to depend on Chinese lithium. In theory, there have been acquisitions by Canadian companies, but they were overseas and bought back by the Chinese. We were told that that was of no value, so there was no need to conduct a review under the Investment Canada Act. Imagine that this happens and we do not take action. I think that we would want to protect our interests in such a situation.
When it comes to the electrification of transport in the new economy, we need ownership of our resources. If we want people to invest here, then we need to own our resources.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers is indeed investing heavily at the end of the supply chain.
We are happy to see companies like Stellantis and Northvolt investing here, but we are at the end of the supply chain. No one is investing at the beginning, in other words, close to our mining companies, so we can protect our resources. We need to unblock the entire supply chain to ensure that we put lithium from Abitibi—Témiscamingue or Quebec in our cars instead of Chinese lithium.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
