44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 30, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and contribute to the debate on Bill C-34 at report stage. It is a bill that has to do with empowering the government to consider foreign investments in Canada and foreign acquisitions and ask whether ultimately those investments or acquisitions are in Canada's best interests. It has been some time since the bill was revised. A lot has happened in the country and the world since 2009, so I think it is a good thing to be looking at these things and asking these questions once again.
There has been some talk and debate already, so I thought I would spend a little time addressing some of what has come before. We are talking about foreign direct investment and trying to figure out why, according to some, there is less foreign direct investment in Canada now than there was before, or why we are not doing as well as certain competitors at attracting foreign direct investment. When we are talking about that, one of the things to note is that over the last 20 or 30 years, if we look at the oil and gas sector as a target for foreign direct investment, we are noticing that a lot of foreign investors are scaling back their investment in Canadian oil and gas at a time when they are trying to scale back their investments in fossil fuels generally as part of a movement by many countries to try to address climate change, diversify energy generation and be less captive geopolitically to countries that are suppliers of natural gas and oil.
As such, Canada has seen a corresponding decrease in foreign direct investment in the oil and gas industry. Despite Conservatives liking to talk about how our allies want Canadian oil and gas, we are seeing a divestment. Also, Canadian banks have filled up that space, so it is not that oil and gas in Canada is not getting private financing to do what it is going to do. What it does mean is that Canada's financial industry is that much more heavily invested in oil and gas, as it picks up the slack that investors from other countries are leaving.
When we look at the global financial picture and where it is going, I think Canada has to watch that we do not end up having a financial sector that is overexposed to fossil fuels. When we look at what Conservative premiers have been doing, like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who is cancelling on a whim tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy in her province, it is to say no to a lot of foreign direct investment, say no to foreign direct investment that would contribute to lowering our emissions and say no to foreign direct investment that would help position Canada in the new energy economy that is emerging, whether Conservatives here would wish it or not. I think that is part of the larger conversation around foreign direct investment.
Let us say that those tens of billions of dollars of investment in Alberta were going ahead and that those foreign investors were interested in investing capital in Alberta to reduce its emissions but nevertheless maintain Alberta as an energy superpower. Let us also say the Conservative premier did not wantonly cancel all of that investment. What would that mean? Well, it would mean there is a role for the Canadian government to evaluate who those investors are and to ask whether they are investing in Alberta in a way that complements the national interests of Canada or are doing it for geopolitical reasons that do not ultimately serve Canada's interests.
If Russian oligarchs and the Chinese state are the ones interested in building up Alberta's solar and wind capacity, I think a lot of Canadians would rightly have questions about the motives of foreign governments that want to be owners of those things or that are closely tied to oligarchs who want to be owners of those things. It is right and good that the Canadian government should evaluate those kinds of investments in advance, make a determination about the Canadian public interest and then either authorize the investments or not.
We know that Canada's laws on foreign investment have been too weak for too long. New Democrats historically have argued for very strong oversight of foreign investment and foreign takeovers for exactly the reason that we are concerned about and very aware of the role that actors outside of Canada can have in coming to own some of our most strategic resources.
Those are all important things to bear in mind. I think this legislation does create more tools. One of the things that I know my colleague for Windsor West, who was quite involved in this file at committee, was very concerned about was that it should create better protection and sculpt the thresholds better to capture intellectual property. I was glad to see that an NDP amendment to that effect was passed.
We know that the economy today is not the economy of 50 years ago, that it is a knowledge-based economy and that it is important to have thresholds that are not just designed for big capital investments, or physical capital investments, but that will also capture and alert government to potential investments or acquisitions by foreign actors of intellectual property. The real value of intellectual property is sometimes not in the right to that particular property itself, but in many of the kinds of spinoffs, licensing and various other things that do not show up on the traditional balance sheet that would be looked at under the current provisions of the act. Therefore, it is important to rejig the threshold so that the potential economic value of intellectual property registers appropriately in the screening mechanism. This can ensure that, where sensitive IP, very valuable IP or strategic IP is being contemplated in a foreign acquisition, merger or investment, the light goes on for folks in government who are supposed to be reviewing these things, and they give it a serious look.
Therefore, I give a shout-out to my friend and colleague from Windsor West for capturing what I think is a very important aspect of foreign investment review going forward and ensuring that it gets appropriate mention in the bill.
I have heard some Conservative colleagues talk a fair bit about China. I think China should be on our radar. We know that China is flexing its muscles on the geopolitical world stage, and it has been for some time. That is why New Democrats were critical of the foreign investment protection agreement that the Harper Conservatives signed with China. I think we should ask the question of how these changes to the Investment Canada Act will interact with that foreign investment protection agreement, particularly given that a lot of the proceedings that happened under the auspices of that FIPA are secretive and hard to access, and they do not permit the level of transparency that I think Canadians would expect to see.
There are other important questions around foreign investment that I think we need to be asking. It is important to have a long memory in this regard. In that way, we can evaluate the claims being made by some in terms of their concerns about how tightly government regulates foreign capital that comes into Canadian markets. We should know the history of those parties and what they have done in government, so we can evaluate their claims to be guardians of the Canadian economy. We know many Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed for the sale of important strategic resources. In a time when we are talking about reshoring and reintroducing industrial planning, changes to this act are an important part of that. However, changing the act itself will not matter if we do not have the political will on the part of whoever is in government to conduct those reviews in an appropriate way, to have a proper definition of Canadian interests and to be willing, where those investments do not make sense for Canada as a whole, to say no.
Of course, the track record of the current government saying no to things on behalf of Canadians and in the interests of everyday Canadians is not that great. I think about the Rogers and Shaw merger and the forthcoming decision about the RBC and HSBC merger. I think these will be important moments. The Liberals have already failed on Rogers and Shaw. An important moment coming up for the government on the RBC and HSBC merger is another proof point for how willing Liberals are to say no to big corporate interests, whether domestic or foreign, in the name of Canadians' own best interests.
I look forward to that decision. I urge the government to make the right one. I think that will tell a fair bit of the story about whether these are just changes on paper or whether the government intends to adopt a culture of protecting Canada's best interest over corporate interests seeking to subvert important pillars of the Canadian economy for corporate gain.
1537 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing some hard numbers. I think that maybe our Conservative colleagues think that foreign direct investment is down because they only look at the oil and gas industry and mistake it for the entirety of the Canadian economy. Of course, Canadians are hard at work in many sectors, producing value. We want to see an economy where workers get to keep a larger share of that value, but it is certainly the case that Canada is doing well and performing well on many metrics.
I would say that, when we talk about the geopolitical situation and FDI, we should be careful to ensure that those direct investments, those foreign investments, are actually contributing to the Canadian economy in the ways we would like to see. I think that is why changes to this act are important. When we talk about reshoring and other things such as that, we are living in an important moment. I think the pandemic really exposed a lot of the weaknesses in our supply chains.
We should be asking this question: Is this a rush on Canadian assets before the door closes, as we get better at reshoring?
I would like to have a government that is more interested in getting the answers to those questions before acquisitions are made. To the extent that this act may help in that—
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will not speak directly to that amendment. The member may know, because he is on committee with me at my usual assignment, that I was not the member at committee. I would, of course, defer to the excellent judgment of my colleague from Windsor West on particular amendments.
I would note that it is nice to hear a Conservative advocating for a little more bureaucracy. Of course, usually, they are not the ones who say that more people should be included in decision-making but that we should have fast, effective decision-making processes. I agree with being fast and effective, but one does sometimes need to consult more. This is a deficiency of the Conservative Party. I am glad to hear that at least one member is thinking twice about that.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for a long time, Canada has had Liberal and Conservative governments that believed if an investor wanted to spend money, it was a good thing. There was no need to ask questions.
NDP members know that some things are more valuable than money. That is why we have always supported the idea of a system focused on protecting our values and our institutions. This approach leaves lots of room for people to make money without compromising our values and—
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:17:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the rule book governing the procedures of the House is very clear in Chapter 11:
...it has always been a fundamental rule of questioning Ministers that the subject matter of the question must fall within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibility of one of its Ministers. This is the only basis upon which Ministers can be expected to answer questions.
Earlier in question period, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke asked a question regarding the conduct of the member for Timmins—James Bay, who is an NDP member and not a member of the government. There are a couple of things that I think bear hearing out on this point.
The first is that as per the rule that I just cited—
An hon. member: Debate.
Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is not debate. This is an issue that pertains to the rules around question period. I note that the Conservatives, not that long ago, attacked the Speaker to say that the sanctity of question period is supreme. Presumably, then, they would also be concerned with treating the rules of question period with the respect that something with that level of sanctity deserves. In fact, it was not that long ago that we had a similar question directed to the government about a position of the NDP, and you rightly ruled that nobody was to answer that question because it was not a question about a government policy.
That is the issue that has to do with the rule. I think this is also the product of a long-standing phrase that has been allowed in this place that is misleading. It is misleading for anyone who understands the Westminster parliamentary democratic system. A confidence and supply agreement, or another party sometimes voting with the government, does not make a party part of a government. It is not a coalition.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the casual abuse of that misleading phrase in this place is now leading to members disregarding some of our important rules about question period and leading to disorder in the House. I would beseech you to consider the use of that phrase in this House, which is false, and to perhaps come back with a decision on that.
386 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
