44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/26/23 10:38:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I read the Bloc Québécois' supplementary opinion, which says that this was a boondoggle.
It is something the federal government uses to dole out money and push the files it prioritizes in the province of Quebec. It is true, it is an economic instrument for the federal government. It is not something that is useful for balancing Canada's economy.
66 words
All Topics
- 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 thank my colleague for his impassioned speech.
I would like to know whether he would be open to creating another bill or at least finding some way to do more to protect our high-tech sectors as well as the head offices of our small businesses. What I would like to say to my colleague is that the Quebec economy in particular is made up largely of SMEs. The thresholds are not reviewed very often.
Does the member think it is important to try to protect our small businesses?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-34 and the final amendments to it. I want to outline briefly, as many others have done, but with my own spin, details on the context of Bill C-34.
We have to look at the economy as it is today, both in Canada and around the world. Twenty or 30 years ago, or even a decade ago, the economy was much different than it is today, both in Canada and around the world. Economies were winning in the 1950s and 1960s if they had a manufacturing base. That was the primary driver of the economy. It was the new economy of the day, as we moved from an agriculture economy to a manufacturing economy.
This has radically changed in the last decade. We have moved to an economy that is largely based on intellectual property. Knowledge is truly power in today's economy. It will determine who are the winners and the losers in the future economic growth of the world.
The 1950s, the 1960s and even the 1970s were characterized by a Cold War, both economically and geopolitically. On the one hand, the Soviet Union was advocating for a centrally planned economy ruled by an authoritarian regime, and on the other hand, the other power, the United States of America, called for a free market system, a system that empowered people around the world to hit their maximum. Our economies and frameworks were built around that.
The challenge today for Canada is that too often our legislation, our frameworks and even our mindsets in certain instances are still back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. We need to adopt a framework. I am pleased the government put Bill C-34 forward, but in some ways it is the exception that proves the rule. When we look at major pieces of legislation, the major frameworks required, unfortunately Canada is falling further and further behind.
If we look at the Income Tax Act, nearly every other OECD country has had a major reform to its taxation regime in the last 40 years. Canada has not. The last time Canada had a major income tax reform was back in the 1970s when the capital gains tax was brought forward. We are not modernizing. We are not keeping up with the rest of the world.
Even Bill C-34 is a dollar short and a day late in many instances, because in some cases the horses are already out of the barn. We have talked about a number of examples, including the lithium mine, which was just rubber-stamped by the government. We have had examples of predatory state-run companies that have walked into our market, purchased our goods and left, with us smiling all along the way. As Canadians, we have to not be afraid to stand up for the Canadian economy and for our fellow Canadians.
We have precious resources, and when I say “resources”, I am sure many members' minds go to our natural resources, which are critical. However, we have a resource that is far more valuable than lithium, gold, platinum or other natural resources we might have. We have the intelligence and ideas of our young and our workers across this country from coast to coast. Right now, we do not have an effective regime to allow those people to be successful here in Canada. We see far too often that our best and brightest, instead of growing great Canadian companies, are taking their ideas abroad, often to the United States of America but also to Europe and other countries, where they are given the opportunity to fully promote and exploit their ideas. We are lacking the intellectual property framework that allows Canadians to be successful.
In Canada, from coast to coast to coast, including in the great province of Quebec, we have some of the best ideas in the world. The difficulty is the transition of those ideas into a commercially viable product. We have resources, which might be gold, lithium or the ideas generated by the great Canadian workforce, and those ideas and resources are among the best in the world and are incredibly valuable. However, what happens far too often in Canada is that we just let them go away, whether it is a lithium mine being sold to state-owned enterprises or our ideas.
Instead of grounding those works in a framework where those individuals can make the most of them, people feel that they cannot make the most of them in Canada because we do not have intellectual property. There are ideas like patent boxes and other tax reform ideas that could have been implemented yesterday. They are not partisan ideas. They have appeared in both Liberal and Conservative, and maybe even Bloc Québécois, platforms, and they just make sense, but we need to get a move on. We need to modernize, but unfortunately the government is slow to act. Even Bill C-34 is very modest and moderate movement. It was with the pushing of some great Conservative members on the committee that we were able to be a bit more aggressive, such as by reducing the cut-off for a national review from $512 million to zero. We have to look at the world not as it was, but as it is.
Another key element that has changed since the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is that then, we had the Soviet Union. It had state-run enterprises, but for the most part they simply did not engage in trade with the west. The need to protect our local economies and our national economies from the Soviet Union was limited, because it really did not trade with us very often. That is completely different from, diametrically opposed to, what the People's Republic of China, the regime in Beijing, is accomplishing. It is engaged in trade throughout the world and with Canada, and aggressively so. We have to acknowledge that, and the bill starts to do so, which is good. It is very different, when we have a company coming to our shores to invest and do business, if it is a privately owned company really motivated by one thing, as most companies are: profit. That is not a bad thing in my opinion. The NDP might disagree.
There are other companies that are state-owned enterprises. Their goals and targets are often much more obscure and vague. They are sometimes looking to promote an authoritarian regime within our own country, to have power and to take charge within our economy. We have to acknowledge the reality of state-owned enterprises and the differences and challenges they pose for our economy. While Bill C-34 is a step along the way, we still see a number of challenges going forward with respect to protecting our national security.
Canadians cannot be afraid. We are good people. We are nice, polite people, and there is no doubt about that. Even the member for Kingston and the Islands is. I will throw that in there, as a good, polite Canadian. We cannot be afraid to put our elbows up a bit in a respectful way to protect our economy and our national interests. We simply can no longer allow our ideas, which I believe are the most valuable resource we have, or our natural resources to simply flutter away. What happens is that those natural resources and ideas get combined outside our shores into commercially viable products, and we end up paying billions of dollars that could have been Canadian. That is a huge issue for us because we are lacking productivity in our country.
We have the lowest per capita GDP since the 1930s, and productivity is based on a three-legged stool. One leg is technology. We talked about the issues with that. We have to look at ideas such as patent boxes and putting in frameworks to protect our intellectual property. The second leg is capital. We need to be able to attract and invest capital. The third leg is people, and like I said, we need to make sure we keep those great young minds from coast to coast to coast right here in Canada, so they can contribute and build our country into the great country it should be.
With that, I look forward to the members' questions and comments.
1407 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to have a discussion, both on Main Street and on Bay Street, and also here in Ottawa, about the future of the economy, because things are changing rapidly with the rise of artificial intelligence and other technologies. We need to have those discussions, and there is an opportunity for Canada to be ahead because we do have great critical minerals and natural resources, but most importantly, we have great minds and great workers here in Canada who deserve for us to be a leader in the world.
96 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
