So V ote

Oct/30/23 1:19:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, with whom I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Science and Research, and I thank him for his work. In committee, we are examining the issue of intellectual property. Right now, we are examining the issue of national security and research. Those are very important subjects. It is important to understand that the knowledge we develop here is of interest to people abroad, people who do not always have our interests at heart. If we want that knowledge to stay in good hands and not be used by entities that certainly do not have our interests at heart, then we need to protect it. In order to do that, we need to implement robust mechanisms. We need to support the economy, but we especially need to support research here. Right now, the federal government is on the wrong track. It must starting making major investments in science and research again so that we can prevent foreign companies from acquiring and using our local brain power.

175 words

All Topics

Oct/30/23 1:17:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I think I was rather clear in my speech. The Conservatives' amendment involved rejecting any projects that do not come from the Five Eyes countries. That would threaten Quebec's economy. I will give the same example I gave before. Forty percent of Europe's investments in Canada are made in Quebec. That means that a major part of Quebec's economy and all of the foreign investment projects would be automatically at the tipping point. Once again, I think that, yes, it is possible to find a balance in all this, but we completely disagreed with the Conservative Party's amendment.

104 words

All Topics

Oct/30/23 1:15:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Winnipeg North. Bill C-34 is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Only 2% of the 1,255 projects would have been reviewed had the new law been in effect. That is manifestly insufficient. That is exactly what I said in my speech. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it needs to go much further. When we look at the review thresholds in this bill, they are insufficient, and most importantly, they do not cast the net wide enough. I think that the government still has work to do. I hope it will listen to reason and ensure that its bill and law fit the current reality and cover more projects that will be analyzed with a view to both national security and economic security.

143 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Oct/30/23 1:04:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

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

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Feb/8/23 6:11:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Halifax, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. It is all well and good to use figures that suit the government. We are used to that with the Liberal government. My colleague mentioned that Canada is ranked second among G20 countries for foreign investment. That is excellent. We attract companies, but we do not invest. Canada is ranked last among G20 countries for investment in business research and development. I also want to remind my colleague that Canada is the only G7 country that has reduced its investment in research and development in the past 20 years. It is fine to present figures that look good. However, does he agree that Canada has one of the worst records when it comes to investment in business? Even the magazine Science says that researchers do not want to come to Canada because the scientific ecosystem is lacking and there is not enough funding. What does my colleague have to say about that?

178 words

All Topics

Feb/8/23 5:47:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I touched on this subject briefly in my speech. People with foreign interests or economic interests coming to invest here do not always have our social investments at heart. She mentioned seniors' homes. I fully agree that we need to pay close attention in modernizing the bill, and we must consider that the interests of foreign investors will not always align with ours. She makes an interesting point. I gave the example of land grabs. Everyone here needs to eat, just like the general population. It is the same thing. The Bloc Québécois will certainly be able to work with my colleague.

116 words

All Topics

Feb/8/23 5:46:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting subject. We have to avoid the intellectual shortcuts that people sometimes take in the House. I sure appreciate the opportunity my colleague gave me. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères gave us a very good example. Rona was purchased by foreign interests, a company called Lowe's, not to name names. It was then resold for a pittance. The company the government had invested in was originally valued at over $3 billion, but it was sold for $400 million. Our constituents are watching us. They placed their trust in us, and they want us to manage their investment with great care. In this case, it was a total failure.

124 words

All Topics

Feb/8/23 5:43:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for that good question. I like these concise questions that are on topic and are neither provocative nor arrogant. To answer my colleague's question, there are indeed several sectors. I am thinking about the biopharmaceutical sector in particular. In the early 2000s, there were a lot of pharmaceutical companies in Canada, primarily in Quebec. They are all gone now because of the underinvestment in research and development and the underinvestment in programs to develop them. I think that we need to focus on our own expertise and protect what we have. We are in a globalized economy, and competition is fierce. I encourage my colleague from Winnipeg North to realize that Canada is the only G7 country that cut its investments in research and development. That is too bad. As I said, Canada is the only G7 country that is still unable to stimulate the private enterprise economy. There is a parallel to be drawn. As I explained very clearly in my speech, when we have fewer head offices, we have fewer means of intervention. This creates jobs in parallel, including with partners in nearby supply chains. Understand this: If we allow others to make decisions for us, people overseas will not take us into consideration as much.

218 words

All Topics