- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34 for the second time. This bill amends the Investment Canada Act. It is well intentioned, but there is still a lot of work to do.
The bill reinforces controls and increases the powers of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry regarding foreign investments in Canada. As we did at second reading of the bill last winter, Bloc Québécois members will continue to fully support any action aimed at better protecting Quebec's economy and Canada's economy against potentially detrimental foreign interests.
I will get right to the crux of the issue. We are debating today the amendments made by the committee. The bill is back in the House to be debated again, and I am glad that my colleagues on the committee were able to look at this closely and broaden the notion of sensitive sectors to include intellectual property and databases that contain personal information. We all agree that this improvement makes the bill stronger and that we should support it.
We also applaud the committee for rejecting the Conservatives' proposed amendments. Their proposal was intended to label every state-owned enterprise not run by our Five Eyes partners as hostile, which would have threatened Quebec's interests given that 40% of European investments in Canada are made in Quebec.
Let us take the example of Airbus, a French-German state-owned company that manufactures its A220 aircraft in Mirabel in partnership with the Quebec government. This project, which generates economic spin-offs for Quebec and Quebeckers, would have been compromised by the Conservative Party when, in fact, it is a collaboration with democratic and transparent states but, most importantly, with allies.
There is also the question of coordinating with the U.S. system. The proposed new review process essentially mirrors what is being done in the United States. Its adoption is intended to increase our American partners' confidence so that they continue to consider us a reliable and preferred partner within their supply chains. It has to be said that trade with the Americans is very important, and I think this bill is a step in that direction.
In March, when the debates clearly indicated that Bill C-34 enjoyed the support of the House, the United States agreed to include Canada in its critical minerals supply chain, which was very good news. This is a sign that the bill achieved its goal and helped strengthen our partners' trust in us.
Without a doubt, Bill C‑34 adds several useful weapons to our legislative arsenal. However, I must emphasize that these changes are still very incomplete. This is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in scrutinizing foreign investment in general. I am going to explain why.
The bill we are studying covers only those investments that could affect national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, and targeting it is justified. However, when we look at the big picture, we see that it represents only a tiny portion of all foreign investment in Canada.
I am going to present a few statistics that will undoubtedly convince my audience. Of the 1,255 investment projects submitted in 2022, only 24 would trigger a review under the new rules proposed in Bill C-34. That is just a grain of sand on a beach. Barely 2% of all investment projects would trigger a security review.
The other 1,221 investments would remain subject to the old rules. These rules provide for a review to determine whether a project is of net economic benefit to Canada. However, a review is only carried out when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold. That is the problem. I hope the government pays attention to this. Over the years, the threshold at which a review is triggered has increased considerably. Projects are getting bigger and require even more investment.
In the past 10 years alone, investment projects have more than tripled. The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review.
Getting back to last year's figures, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. Eight projects out of a total of 1,255 were submitted for review under the act. That is less than 1%, although the review rate was 10% as recently as 2009. The holes in this safety net have become far too big for it to be effective. The measure might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. That is why we need to go much further.
I would like to draw a parallel with history. In building our future, it is always important to be cognizant of the past, in order to avoid past mistakes and learn from past successes. I would like to share with the House some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.
Since the Quiet Revolution, the Quebec government has established significant economic and financial levers. These tools have allowed it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism aiming to give Quebeckers better control of their economy. This does not mean that Quebec is closed to foreign investment. We are open to it, of course, because it is a driver of growth and development. However, we believe we must support our own businesses to help them grow and seek to preserve our headquarters, which are significant decision-makers.
I will provide an example. In 1988, Bernard Landry, former premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Québécois, campaigned to promote the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which was signed with the United States and Mexico in the early 1990s. As we know, Quebec's strategy worked well when we explain economic nationalism and the protection of headquarters in terms of the large subsidiaries worldwide. Banking on the development of these businesses, we saw the growth of many flagships whose headquarters are in Quebec. The presence of these headquarters is significant. Structurally, businesses with headquarters in Quebec tend to create jobs, attract talent, and promote sourcing from local suppliers, creating a virtuous economic cycle. Companies also tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their headquarters are located.
There are also reasons for adopting this legislation. There is no shortage of examples that demonstrate the harmful effects of ill-advised foreign investments on our economy. I will name a few. The loss of decision-making levers and headquarters condemns us to be a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Everyone remembers Lowe's acquisition of Rona. Let us also consider the weakening of Montreal's financial position as a leading world financial centre; the total reliance of our businesses on foreign providers and on supply chains that are more vulnerable than ever; the possible land grabs by rich foreigners who have no interest in our social and economic priorities; and the loss of control of our natural resources, which are the greatest wealth our territory has to offer.
The Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such, it has suggested three types of tangible changes for the government to focus on. The first is to lower the review threshold so that the government has the power to review more investment projects. According to the numbers, it looks at barely 2% or even 1% of certain projects. There is a huge gap to overcome for a bill to be able to ensure better security overall, but also better protection from foreign investments. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy, such as leading-edge sectors, land ownership or control over natural resources. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents. Intellectual property is the knowledge we develop. We need to protect that knowledge, including in the pharmaceutical sector. Some Quebec companies had molecule patents that were then purchased by major pharmaceutical companies and moved overseas.
National security is important, but we must not overlook economic security and long-term prosperity. Let us be clear. This is not about closing the door on foreign investment. Quebec and Canada must remain economically open to the world.
In closing, as Jacques Parizeau wrote in 2001, before China even became a member of the World Trade Organization, “We do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves”.
Unfortunately, the weakening of the Investment Canada Act has caused those levees to break.
1464 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
We can all agree that the provisions in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are poorly adapted to the reality of our agricultural producers and to the structure of agri-food supply chains.
Bill C‑280, which is co-sponsored by my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, seeks to establish a trust mechanism in the event that a purchaser becomes bankrupt. The trust mechanism ensures that the purchaser is the guarantor of the value of the shipment, without owning it, in the event of a default due to the application of one of the two acts. This bill will be extremely helpful to our producers and agri-food suppliers who do business with our neighbours to the south.
Prior to 2014, Canadian fruit and vegetable suppliers were protected by a U.S. law when doing business in the United States. When an American company defaulted or went bankrupt, our companies were protected by the U.S. regime. That is no longer the case, and the alternative process developed between the two countries is cumbersome, especially for our smaller businesses.
As of 2014, the United States decided to withdraw protections for Quebec and Canadian suppliers in the event that their American buyers become insolvent or file for bankruptcy. The American government made that decision, which penalizes and undermines our Canadian farmers, business owners and suppliers, because of the lack of an equivalent mechanism in the Canadian regulatory framework.
Right now, without that protection, Quebec and Canadian produce suppliers must go through a special process to take legal action under that law in the United States. According to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, suppliers are required to post a bond worth double the value of the shipment to initiate a claim. Most suppliers do not have that kind of cash flow and big buyers are well aware of that. Our suppliers are therefore forced to negotiate the buyer down to try to get a minimum amount of compensation rather than lose everything.
According to the testimony heard by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when examining this issue, the United States and the United States Department of Agriculture have been very clear. They will be looking for a deemed trust before they agree to have a conversation on whether they will give us back the treatment we had previously. A public servant also confirmed that “the trade of fresh produce between Canada and the U.S. has continued to rise over the last four years, by 55% for fresh fruits and 26% for fresh vegetables, showing that the U.S. remains an important market for [Quebec and] Canadian fresh produce.”
Clearly, reinstating protection for our farmers who do business in the United States is not all that far-fetched. In fact, I would argue that it is necessary and urgent. I also want to remind the Prime Minister that he committed to fixing this problem not two weeks, two months or even two years ago. In 2014, when he had only just been elected to lead his party, he committed to fixing this problem if he took office, as he did in the 2015 federal election.
Spoiler alert: His party has been running the federal government for almost 10 years. Why has it taken this long to get something done in support of our agricultural sector? This bill has the support of every party in the House. What is more, the bill is an environmental and social measure.
I do not know why it has taken so long. That said, when it comes to Liberal standards, we have seen worse than taking 10 years to deliver on a promise.
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that I have the honour and privilege of representing the people of the Lower St. Lawrence, a rural and proudly agricultural region.
In my region, we have 2,000 farms that produce annual revenues of more than $600 million, a major contribution to the gross domestic product of the region, Quebec and Canada. Dairy farming alone represents nearly half of all agri-food operations in the Lower St. Lawrence region, but our passionate farmers work in countless other sectors, such as maple syrup production in Témiscouata, hog farming, cattle farming, and grain and potato farming. There are also produce growers who grow fruits and vegetables on our fertile land.
During my many visits and meetings with produce growers, I noticed that the representatives from the farming industry firmly and unanimously support this bill. That is why my esteemed colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will support our colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, the agriculture, agri‑food and supply management critic, so that Bill C‑280, the bill he co-sponsored, may come into force as soon as possible. I invite all my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the House to do the same.
For the sake of regions such as the Lower St. Lawrence, where farming has been an integral part of our daily lives for centuries, and for the sake of helping the farmers who put food on our tables remain competitive and financially healthy, we must move forward with Bill C‑280.
886 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 9:34:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I listened carefully to my colleague from Don Valley West's speech, and I strongly disagree.
He claims there was no failure of leadership, but there was. The United States said it was planning to double the duties long ago, in May. That was six months ago. What did the government do? It did not respond.
Once again, we are in the same situation we have been experiencing year after year. They say we must go through the mechanisms. How many times has Canada sought recourse before the World Trade Organization? Its decisions are not binding. We have to raise our voice when our neighbours disrespect us.
I will ask my colleague: What is the silver bullet?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 8:19:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, first I would like to congratulate my brilliant colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his speech.
The forestry industry is a major player in our region. It accounts for nearly 20% of the Lower St. Lawrence economy and nearly 40% of the region’s manufacturing jobs.
History tends to repeat itself. My colleague put it very well. We have already seen this bad movie before. In 2006, the industries had to leave on the table nearly $1 billion of the $5 billion that was imposed as countervailing tariffs.
I would ask my colleague what is the solution that will prevent Quebec from suffering the repercussions of the tariffs being imposed on softwood lumber by the Americans.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
