44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-34. We were supposed to be debating it a few hours ago, but instead the Conservatives, in their reckless wisdom, thought it would be better to amplify their party's position on the Canada infrastructure bank, which, as I pointed out in my debate, is totally and absolutely bizarre.
Before I go on to the actual debate on the amendments, I have an observation and a plea for my Conservative friends.
Canadians were disappointed when the Conservatives flip-flopped on the price on pollution, a fairly significant flip-flop. I would encourage them to do another flip-flop on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Canadians would benefit immensely if they were to do that, so I highly recommend that.
I am glad that we are finally on this debate. It is important to recognize that the last time the Investment Canada was amended was maybe 12 or 14 years ago, I believe. A great deal has taken place since then.
We can talk about things such as foreign interference. Foreign interference takes place in many different ways. One of those ways is through investments, significant investments.
When we think of investments, we have to think of it in two ways. There are those who will invest in Canada to get a rate of return. They are not necessarily a majority; they are not taking ownership, if I can put it that way.
Then there are investments in which ownership has taken over. I think most Canadians, including myself, have a great deal of concern when that takes place. Whether we are debating the amendments or the legislation itself, we have to be very careful to recognize that we are debating ways in which we can modernize the Investment Canada Act.
I want to focus on technological changes, such as the development of AI and the impact that this has on society.
We have incredible companies throughout the country. We have endless minerals and potential for development and extraction. Many minerals that are in exceptionally high demand can be found in Canada. We have companies that are leading the world in certain sectors, such as anything related to companies that are technologically advanced, AI being one of those.
As a government, we have been putting a great deal of focus on green jobs, recognizing the not millions, not even billions but close to a trillion dollars of investment around the world. We have to be very much aware of that. We have to realize that Canada has a role to play. We need to be in a position to protect our industries, the AI and the technological advancements that are taking place today. That is why we have things such as copyrights and patents.
We do not want a company from abroad coming into Canada, buying something and then taking it out of Canada. Canada loses out because of that leading technology that was part of a company.
This is why it is important we see this legislation pass. It would modernize the Investment Canada Act.
Let us think of this with respect to national security reviews, how we look at certain aspects of industries, anything from military weapons development to Internet or artificial intelligence being developed in Canada, to see if it is in Canada's best interest. It is not in Canada's best interest to accept all international investments coming into our country.
At times, as a government, we want to be in a position to put in some constraints, take specific actions that will protect Canadian industries and Canadians as a whole. It also ensures the type of growth we want to promote and encourage in certain sectors. In fact, we often provide incentives for those industries.
Canada, through the many trade agreements we have signed off on in the last number of years, has created opportunities, not only for investment outside of Canada but also for investment to come into the country. Canada, as a result of our many trade agreements and our reputation around the world, is a great place to invest.
Billions of dollars every year enter our country for a multitude of reasons. Let there be no doubt that a lot of it is because of Canada's reputation in the world as being a safe place to invest. At the end of the day, it's those and other investments that we have to be aware of with respect to how they impact Canadian jobs, not only for today, those good, hard-working middle class-type jobs, to ensure we protect them well into the future.
This legislation would empower the minister and different areas of the department to do just that. It would provide a higher sense of security and ensure that the best interests of Canadians are better served. That is what I like about the legislation, and it is very timely. As we continue to grow in commerce throughout the world, we have to ensure we have the regulations and laws in place to protect the population from a wide spectrum of things that could come about.
I look to my colleagues across. Instead of filibustering the legislation by doing what they did earlier, we could have been debating this. I could have been giving this speech over three hours ago. It would have been nice to have seen this legislation possibly pass before question period, as we are at report stage; it still has to go through third reading. We know that is not going to happen now because they were successful with their three-hour filibuster. However, they were the ones who made with that decision.
I hope members across the way will see the value of the legislation for what it is. It is about ensuring that Canada is well positioned, from a worldwide perspective, on investments, so we are able to better create and promote industries in Canada, thereby keeping the jobs we have and growing our economy well into the future by providing well-quality jobs for our middle class.
1012 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the parliamentary secretary's remarks on the Investment Canada Act changes, and I would like to ask a question. What we are debating here today is the report stage and some amendments. Conservatives have put forward a particular amendment that would restore cabinet decision-making in reviewing foreign investment. This bill would actually take that out of section 15.
I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary thinks that cabinet decision-making is of value, or whether we should just have a lot of little independent ministers who could run the roost over making individual decisions on whether an investment is good for Canada or not, without the input of their colleagues, including their colleagues from Quebec or other parts of the country?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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, 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, 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, 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, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.
Today the House of Commons will vote unanimously to support this bill's objectives. This bill was studied at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and we encourage those members to send this bill to the Senate for its consideration.
Members all know very well this legislation plays an important role in our economy and that it helps in making Canada a destination of choice for foreign investments. This legislation will ensure there are favourable conditions for a trade based on a stable regime and clear regulation.
This legislation encourages economic growth and employment. The legislation allows for a government intervention only if an investment would harm Canada’s national security. Bill C-34 allows the government to act rapidly if the circumstances require it, and this is exactly what we intend to do with these proposed amendments.
In fact, it is clear the time has come to modernize the ICA and ensure Canada is aligned with the rest of the world. Our industry remains one of the most dynamic in the world, but as members all know, Canada is facing unprecedented geostrategic challenges and national security issues.
Canada’s foreign investment regime must adapt to the speed of innovation. In recent years, intangible assets in the knowledge economy, like intellectual property and data, have grown in importance in defining Canada’s economic strength and at the same time pose new challenges in terms of how these are to be managed to ensure the benefits accrue to Canada and Canadians.
Our government recognizes the value of the intangible economy, its growth and the relevant opportunities for all Canadians. These new innovations are driving new ways of doing business and with huge opportunities for Canadians. Our government will support this growth as it helps drive Canada’s economy and supports highly skilled, well-paying jobs.
To do so, tools such as the ICA must also be modernized to offer additional protections considering changing geopolitical and technological advancements, and to prevent hostile actors from exploiting Canada’s expertise and capacity for innovation.
Geopolitical risks and instability are now fixtures in our operating environment. Hostile state and non-state actors pursue deliberate strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property. They do so in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada’s interests and principles. We also know that foreign investments can be used as a conduit for foreign influence activities that seek to weaken our norms and institutions. The nexus between technology and national security is clear and here to stay.
Rapid technological innovation has provided Canada with new opportunities for economic growth, but it has also given rise to new and difficult policy challenges. More and more, Canada is the target of hostile threats. This threatens both our national security and our prosperity simultaneously. That is why our government must adapt our tools to better defend ourselves against current and future threats.
All over the world, foreign investments have been the subject of many investigations, with a specific focus on national security. These investigations focused on several angles, such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the security implications of climate change, disruptions to global supply chains and shifting geopolitical considerations. Hence, by amending this legislation to stop the threats of tomorrow, Canada will remain a destination of choice for foreign investments.
The time is right to pursue modernization of the Investment Canada Act. Now more than ever, we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to foster an innovative, healthy and growing economy. The guidance and decisions issued over the past several years make clear that some transactions, particularly those by state-owned or state-influenced investors, may be motivated by non-commercial imperatives that could harm Canada’s national security.
Allow me to repeat that these types of investments in sectors deemed sensitive currently face enhanced scrutiny under the ICA. Our government believes an effective review regime must be robust, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world and that it is now time to make these changes. That is why we stand today in favour of this bill, which represents the most significant update to the Investment Canada Act since 2009.
We are making important moves now to review and modernize key aspects of the act, while ensuring that the overarching framework to support needed foreign investment to grow our economy remains strong and open. Our record as a government makes it abundantly clear that, where national security is concerned, we will not shy away from decisive action and that our assessment of risk keeps pace with evolving economic and geopolitical considerations.
The ICA already gives us much of the authority we need to intercede and address national security risk that can arise from foreign investment. These amendments build on the solid foundation and will improve the mechanics around the national security review of investments.
Now is the time to act decisively so we can make sure that Canada will continue to gain the economic benefits of investments while strengthening our ability to address threats to our country and ensure its future prosperity. It is clear to everyone that the proposed amendments in Bill C-34 would ensure an important equilibrium. They would protect Canadians and Canadian enterprises while making sure that investors will continue to view Canada as their first destination of choice.
921 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one thing that is happening in Canada is that hundreds of millions of dollars of investment are leaving the country because we do not have a competitive landscape here. We have higher taxes, carbon tax 1.0 and 2.0, long approval processes in our regulatory process and uncertainty. We see that we would have to give away $31 billion to incite people to come to Canada and open up a business. Why was none of that put into the bill?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the act are really designed to ensure national security and that Canadian interests are reflected in the act. When foreign investment is coming into the country, it would be subject to a national security review. We have actually seen quite a significant amount of that coming into Canada in recent years. I think giving the minister the powers and authority to be able to react and trigger those reviews are extremely important to protecting our national interests.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34, otherwise known as the national security review of investments modernization act, seeks to update and strengthen the Investment Canada Act with the aim of protecting Canada's national security when it comes to foreign investments in our country.
As tensions rise around the world, Canadians, our businesses, our intellectual property, our private data and our natural resources must be protected from bad actors who seek to undermine our sovereignty and exert influence on our institutions and way of life in Canada. For eight years, the NDP-Liberal government has not taken sensitive transactions seriously and has failed to conduct full reviews of transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises, which has seriously jeopardized the security of Canadians and our government.
According to Statistics Canada, China's share of Canadian assets under foreign control doubled from 1.9% to 3.8% between 2015 and 2019. Large shares of key industries are also under foreign control, including 40% of all assets in Canada's oil and gas industry, 48% of wholesale trade, 44% of manufacturing, 30% of mining and quarrying and 25% of professional, scientific and technical services. With so much of Canada's economy controlled by foreign companies and governments, it is crucial that we ensure foreign investments do not pose a threat to our national security and prevent bad actors from weaponizing Canada's economy and our own resources against us.
Let us take a look at some recent examples of investments the government missed.
One example is the Neo Lithium Corp. and Zijin Mining. In March 2021, the minister of industry updated and enhanced guidelines for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises. Just 10 months later, the minister ignored those new guidelines, allowing a Canadian mining company, Neo Lithium Corp., to be acquired by Zijin Mining, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, without a security review.
Another example is Sinclair Technologies and Hytera Communications. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract to supply sensitive hardware for its communications systems to Sinclair Technologies, which is directly linked to Hytera Communications, a company partially owned by the Chinese government and a major supplier of China's public security ministry. It was revealed in December 2022 that the CBSA used Hytera's technology and communications equipment in 2017. Hytera has been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the U.S. and banned from doing business in that country. In 2017, when Hytera acquired B.C.-based telecommunications company Norsat International, the parent company of Sinclair Technologies, the minister of industry failed to request a full national security review.
Conservatives have long called on the current government to take swift action to ensure that, any time a foreign state-owned enterprise seeks to invest in a Canadian corporation or asset, the government conducts a thorough review. At second reading of this bill, Conservatives voted to advance the proposed legislation to the industry committee, upon which I sit, with the clear expectation that significant amendments would be made. At industry committee, Conservatives tabled a number of amendments to ensure these reviews would take place and to strengthen this legislation as a whole.
Some of the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me at industry were adopted. However, many more were voted down by the government.
We wanted to modify the definition of “state-owned enterprises” to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state. We wanted to list specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada's national security rather than the systematic approach applied or recommended by public servants. We wanted to exempt non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the national security review process, to prevent an overly broad review process for an ally such as the United States or Australia. We wanted to allow the Government of Canada to maintain ownership of intangible assets that have been developed, in whole or in part, by taxpayer-funded dollars. The committee members rejected those things.
We wanted to allow the minister to go back and review past state-owned acquisitions through the national security review process, allowing for a flexible review process. They rejected that ministerial power.
We know that public servants do take a risk-adverse approach in crafting regulations and providing advice during the legislative process. That is not necessarily a bad thing. That is a good thing. However, politicians must be willing to make the tough decisions, weighing the potential benefits against the repercussions of any decision.
Going back to that first rejected amendment, Conservatives moved to include companies headquartered in an authoritarian state in the definition of state-owned enterprises to ensure that they are automatically subject to security reviews. We just want to protect our sovereignty.
Public servants warned against calling out certain nations like this, as it could conflict with WTO obligations. However, when we look at the 2019 annual report from the national security committee of Parliament, NSICOP, it highlighted activities carried out by the People's Republic of China in Canada, stating, “they are a clear threat to the security of Canada.” The report also stated that “foreign interference represents a significant threat to Canada's society and fundamental institutions.”
The government's own Indo-Pacific strategy reads:
China has benefitted from the rules-based international order to grow and prosper, but it is now actively seeking to reinterpret these rules to gain greater advantage. China’s assertive pursuit of its economic and security interests, advancement of unilateral claims, foreign interference and increasingly coercive treatment of other countries and economies have significant implications in the region, in Canada and around the world.
Despite all that, the Liberals and the Bloc members voted down our amendment. Frankly, it is not surprising, given how long this government has ignored the 2019 NSICOP report, which called for a foreign agent registry, and given the fact that our Prime Minister has said that he admires the basic dictatorship of China.
The question I want the government members to answer is this: Do they really believe that, without the amendments we put forward in good faith, which they rejected, this bill is as strong as it could be to protect Canadian assets, companies and, most importantly, our sovereignty? I do not believe they can answer with a yes.
Thankfully, a few of our common-sense Conservative amendments were passed.
Number one was to reduce the threshold to trigger a national security review from $512 million to zero for any investment by a state-owned enterprise. I think if there is one thing to note from the work the Conservative Party did it would be our standing up for Canadian sovereignty by changing this fundamental aspect of the Investment Canada Act. Moving forward, when this is passed, when China is looking strategically to take an asset in Canada, say mining rights or a small mine that would fall under the threshold, which I believe this year is at $512 million, that strategic move to try to make its way into the Canadian economy would be subject to a security review. That would be thanks to the hard work of the Conservative members.
Number two was to ensure that items reviewable under the national security review process would include acquisitions of any assets by state-owned enterprises. Number three was to work to ensure that an automatic national security review would be conducted whenever a company had previously been convicted of corruption charges. Number four would require the minister to conduct a national security review by changing “may” to “shall” to ensure a review is triggered whenever it is in the review threshold.
That brings us to today. Conservatives have brought forward a common-sense amendment here at report stage that would protect the system of checks and balances in place on the minister's power to undertake, or not undertake, a national security review. Our amendment would remove clause 15 of Bill C-34, which would revert the language back to the existing text in the Investment Canada Act. This would ensure that cabinet continues to play an active role in ensuring regional representation and in making major decisions about foreign investment in our country.
In conclusion, I understand what the Liberals are trying to do here by streamlining decisions through the minister of industry and the minister of public safety, but we must ensure that regional representation plays a role in national security reviews moving forward.
1416 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of that question, but I will note that the member for Nepean actually stood alongside Conservative members in the House during second reading when he called for some of the changes to the national security review.
More broadly to his point, I think when we look at the Investment Canada Act, the Government of Canada needs to be looking very closely at protecting strategic interests, and that is what we were trying to do. That is not just from foreign state-owned actors, but that does include multinational companies as well.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question regarding the Competition Act, which has been debated very recently in the House of Commons. However, the Investment Canada Act is a bit different than the Competition Act.
What we are focused on here today is ensuring, irrespective of political party, that the Government of Canada has the necessary tools and framework to protect Canadian sovereignty to ensure that our elected officials can make appropriate decisions when foreign investment wants to come into this country and make a decision to ensure that it would be a net benefit gain for Canada when foreign investment dollars come to our wonderful country.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-34, an act to modernize the national security provisions of the Investment Canada Act. We have been clear that we will always welcome foreign investments and trade that encourages economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada.
At the same time, we know that economic security is national security. That is why this bill, which will amend the Investment Canada Act, would bring forward improvements so our government can act more quickly when required. This legislation would represent the most significant update of the ICA since 2009 and would ensure that we could address changing threats that can arise from foreign investment. While our government continues to welcome foreign direct investment, we are modernizing the ICA framework to ensure Canada’s continued prosperity while acting decisively when investments threaten our national security.
Let me first appreciate the fundamental importance of foreign investments to our economy. Canada has a long history of welcoming foreign capital, businesses and expertise, and this openness has played a pivotal role in shaping our nation's growth. Foreign investments are a driving force behind economic development in Canada. They fuel innovation, stimulate job creation and enhance our global competitiveness. Foreign direct investment has enabled us to harness the expertise and resources of international partners, thereby propelling our own industries forward.
These investments result in the creation of well-paying jobs for Canadians and help diversify our economic landscape. Moreover, they facilitate the transfer of knowledge and best practices, fostering innovation and productivity enhancements. While the economic benefits of foreign investment are undeniable, we must not overlook the critical dimensions of national security. Protecting our sovereignty, infrastructure and sensitive data is paramount. National security is not a matter of choice. It is an unwavering obligation of the government to safeguard the interests and well-being of its citizens.
Over the years, the interconnectedness of our world has increased exponentially. Technology and the flow of capital have become global, creating unprecedented opportunities but also potential vulnerabilities. We cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to the protection of our national interests. While our commitment to an open and welcoming environment for foreign investors remains steadfast, it must coexist with a thorough evaluation of the national security implications that each investment brings with it.
As I said earlier, we welcome foreign investments and trade that encourages economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada. At the same time, we know that economic security is national security.
In my speech during second reading, I had mentioned the importance of economic security. I would like to touch on that again. The importance of economic security in the context of foreign direct investments cannot be overstated. In the pursuit of economic growth, it is essential that we safeguard against any potential threats to our long-term economic security.
The economic security part primarily concerns the stability and growth of our economy, while the national security part pertains to safeguarding our sovereignty and protection from external threats. Foreign direct investment is a powerful tool for economic growth, but it must be leveraged in a way that ensures that all sectors of our economy continue to thrive.
The steel and aluminum industries in Canada, which are 100% foreign-owned, serve as a compelling example of how a failure to address economic security can potentially result in stagnation and even decline. These industries, dominated by foreign ownership, have seen little to no growth in production capacity over the past two decades.
While the rest of the world is expanding its aluminum and steel sectors, Canada's lack of growth and diversification in these areas has hindered our ability to tap into new markets and fully leverage our numerous free trade agreements. In fact, there are hardly any exports from the Canadian steel and aluminum industries outside of North America, even though we have signed 15 free trade agreements with 51 different countries that cover 61% of global GDP.
There is a need for a comprehensive approach to foreign investment that addresses not only national security but also the economic well-being of our nation. We must find a balance that encourages investment while ensuring that the growth and diversification of our economic sectors continue to contribute to our long-term economic security.
To strike a balance between these economic requirements and national security requirements, we have adopted a comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to foreign investments. The approach is rooted in a principled and fact-based assessment of each investment proposal. The key elements of our approach include legislation and regulations, a national security review process, risk assessment, proportionate responses, consultation and transparency.
There are certain principles that guide our approach to foreign investments and national security. The first is sovereignty and security. Canada's sovereignty and national security are not negotiable. The government is committed to safeguarding the country's interests and ensuring that foreign investments do not compromise its security.
The second is openness and partnership. Canada remains open to foreign investments that enhance economic growth and job opportunities. We value international partnerships and the mutual benefits they bring.
The third is transparency and accountability. Our approach is characterized by transparency, accountability and due process. Decisions are made based on facts, expert advice and consultation with relevant parties.
The fourth is proportional response. The response to national security risks is proportionate to the level of risk identified. This ensures that legitimate and beneficial investments are not unfairly restricted.
The fifth is continual adaptation. Our approach is not static. It evolves to address new and emerging challenges. The government remains committed to staying ahead of evolving threats and opportunities.
With this act, we are highlighting that Canada's approach to foreign investments strikes a delicate balance between economic growth and national security. We remain committed to welcoming foreign capital and expertise that contribute to our prosperity, innovation and employment opportunities. However, this commitment is tempered by an unwavering dedication to safeguarding our sovereignty and national security.
The Investment Canada Act, the national security review process and the guiding principles that underlie our approach provide a robust framework to evaluate foreign investments. Through consultation, transparency and a proportional response to identified risks, we ensure that legitimate investments are not discouraged and national security is upheld.
In this era of interconnectedness, Canada's approach is not a mere policy. It is a reflection of our values, our commitment to our citizens and our vision for a prosperous and secure future. We embrace the world while safeguarding our national interests, and in doing so, we strengthen the very foundations of our great nation.
The ICA provides for both the net benefit and national security reviews of foreign investments into Canada. It was established to provide investor certainty while reserving Canada's ability to block individual investments under specific circumstances. The act is designed to encourage investment, economic growth and employment, only interceding when an investment is not of net benefit to Canada or would harm national security.
1172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, national security issues due to investments made by certain state-owned enterprises were always a concern. In fact, I think we have gone back and re-reviewed some of the decisions made to allow foreign investments by state-owned enterprises.
My view is that this bill is comprehensive enough to take care of the national security review of any investment made by any foreign entity.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that any investment that promotes innovation in Canada is always welcome. A question will only come up if that innovation affects national security. If there are any speculative investments, like the purchase of agricultural land just for the sake of holding it, they too should be looked into. At the end of the day, the ownership of limited and productive resources does constitute a national security threat.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the importance of trade agreements and foreign investments. When we look at Canada and the number of trade agreements it has achieved over the last number of years, I like to think that has made Canada open to foreign investment. That is one of the reason we need the modernization of legislation. What are his comments on that?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exactly right. The 15 trade agreements we have signed with 51 countries, covering 61% of the world's GDP, show the world that Canada is an attractive place for foreign investment.
We want to attract foreign investments that are strategic, that promote innovation and that provide high-quality jobs in Canada. We are always open to that. However, this particular bill focuses on investments that affect national security.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will start where the last comment left off. I should remind the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South that it was the Harper government that saw 40,000 auto sector jobs leave this country over a 10-year period. That was 40,000 people and their families who had to make very difficult decisions about what to do next.
Since then, the government has been working with other partners throughout the world to attract investment here, and now we have attracted new investments to this country. This is what I will get to in why this legislation is so important, but in the process of attracting investment, we are now seeing, in a riding neighbouring both his and mine, a brand new manufacturing facility for raw minerals, to make electric vehicle batteries. It will produce enough materials to make 800,000 cars a year. There will be a piece of my riding, his riding and, indeed, Hastings—Lennox and Addington and a couple of other neighbouring Conservative ridings in every vehicle in North America in the future. This is great not just for our ridings but also for our country.
Therefore, I took great exception when the member said in his speech earlier that jobs are leaving. On the contrary. Despite the fact that some other members of the House think they are all going to catch on fire, with respect to manufacturing specifically and the vehicles of the future, we are going to see, in the future, that Canada is a leader in those manufacturing jobs. That is why bills like this are so important, because what we are talking about is protecting the interests of Canadians at the forefront. The bill is about modernizing the legislation, to give the minister and those responsible the tools they need to be always watching out for the best interests of Canadians.
This is another one of those bills where I would think it would go without saying that all members of the House would support it, and the indication I am starting to get is that they will. I am lost, because I was actually supposed to speak to this much earlier in the day but did not get the opportunity because, instead of talking about very important things like this, once again we saw the same old Conservative delay tactic of introducing a concurrence motion on a report. Again, these reports from committees come in abundance to this place. Typically, they are just tabled and dealt with, but Conservative members thought that this would be a great way to burn three hours of government time today. I am forced to speak to this later, and they know what they are doing; they are basically pushing everything down the line. The next time my good friends from the Bloc or the NDP stand up and ask why we need a time allocation motion, this is why; it is because of what is happening in the House today.
The legislation before us is so critically important in order for us to be able to protect intellectual property, investments and, quite frankly, Canadians. What the bill would do, specifically, is authorize the Minister of Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on investments in order to prevent potential national security injury from taking place during the review. It would also authorize the Minister of Industry, where they consider that the investment could be injurious to national security, to make an order for further review of the investments under the national security provisions of the act.
I think that why this legislation is so important now is that we are getting to a point where investments are flowing freely in and out of countries and where this government has brought in more trade agreements than every other government in the past, in terms of working and trading with other nations. There was a time, many decades ago, when, believe it or not, Liberals were not in favour of trade. Where have we gotten to now? We have gotten to the point where it is now Conservatives who are questioning trade.
Before our eyes, we are seeing exactly what is going on in the United States of America. Republicans who are supposed to be pro-economy and pro-trade have now turned into isolationists. I hear Conservatives heckling me, but it was just yesterday or the day before that the member for Cumberland—Colchester asked me a question and referred to the trade agreement with Ukraine as woke legislation and questioned whether or not Canada was taking advantage of Ukraine.
All the Conservatives who are currently heckling me are going to have to explain to me why a party that is in favour of trade so much would start questioning a basic trade relationship with a country that we see as an ally, a country that we are supporting during a war. They are going to have to explain that to me, because I can say with a great degree of confidence that we will not hear that MAGA terminology used on this side of the House.
I know we will not hear it from my Bloc colleagues and I know we will not hear from my NDP colleagues, but now we are getting a new faction of the Conservative Party that is openly questioning why we are supporting Ukraine and why we would even think about trading with Ukraine. That is where we have gotten to in this country. That is where we are now. This is not the Brian Mulroney Conservative Party. This is the new MAGA of the north. That is what we are looking at across the way.
I am not saying all Conservatives are like that. They are? Some of them are nodding. I could be wrong, but they come into this House and start making wild claims, like electric car batteries spontaneously burst into fire, like we heard a couple of days ago. The member tried to substantiate that claim on a number of points of order, as she is trying to do now.
1027 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a part of this bill that talks about the ability to review any state-owned companies looking to purchase in Canada.
We have seen in the past how long it sometimes takes for the government to make a decision. I am wondering if the member opposite would agree that it would be good to possibly strengthen something in this bill to make sure there is a timely response, to make sure that that review gets done as soon as possible, so there is some certainty for investment that is needed in Canada, but that it is done in a proper way so that Canada is not being exposed to actors who maybe do not have the best of intentions for our country.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
