Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you very much, Senator Galvez.

I appreciate the question. I’m glad that you are taking notice of our work, and we were glad to have you there last week sitting in at committee.

We are, indeed, looking at why Canada, with one of the largest energy-based economies in the world, is seriously lagging other countries in attracting investment. We are hearing repeatedly from private Canadian companies why they are not investing here — too much politics, too much red tape. The same concern is coming from foreign capital, making it reluctant to invest unless the government offers up millions or in some cases billions in incentives.

The problem with the subsidy approach for us, regardless of what sector you are looking at, is that it is costly and it too often offers only short-term gain.

One of our witnesses, James Hinton, an intellectual property lawyer and part of Own Innovation, explained:

You can’t just fund your way into economic prosperity. For example, in clean technology, we own less than 1% of the global intellectual property. So unless you recognize the existing position of Canadian firms and intentionally ensure that Canadian-owned IP and data assets are part of the clean-tech value chain, you are initiating a generational wealth transfer out of the country because 99% of the foundation is already owned.

We see similar examples with Volkswagen and Ericsson — billions in subsidies without any assurances that the IP stays in Canada. Jobs are created, but what we’ve also heard from witnesses is that the jobs model — and this has been referred to frequently — is not one that incentivizes the private sector to come to the table and invest in Canadian companies as partners sharing IP.

The jobs model secures activity in the country, and it may even help shift activity toward renewables, but it is not an investment strategy that will work in the future.

The U.S. IRA strategy is putting billions into clean growth, repatriating production that was offshored. Ottawa’s approach is, “Well, frankly it is hard to compete with big spenders and with countries that have no carbon tax.”

Many of our witnesses have talked about an attitudinal issue — and I think that this troubles us all — that we tend to be risk‑averse in this country. That too must change. Our start-ups are more likely to sell than grow, so they do not even look to secure their own IP.

Whether it is green technology, clean technology, agricultural technology, communications technology or even artificial intelligence, or AI, we need to have a strategy that will do more than create branch-plant jobs.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: As we heard earlier this week, it is National Soil Conservation Week, so I would like to direct my question to the Chair of the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee who has been a champion for the agricultural community in Canada — I thank you for that.

You have said, here in the chamber, that the soil health study being undertaken by your committee is long term and all‑encompassing because soil health is — as you have suggested — intrinsically connected to the health of Canadians, directly affecting our economy, our food security and our climate.

As always, the doers — those people who do things — lead. Can you tell us what the committee is hearing about soil conservation methods already being used by farmers, processors and producers to support Canada’s climate health?

I’ll ask my follow-up question as well: If you could share just one thing that we all need to know about soil health in order to highlight National Soil Conservation Week for Canadians, many of whom don’t follow our committees online, what would that be? Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: My question is for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

In your speech yesterday, Senator Housakos, you raised many of the concerns that witnesses have been outlining throughout our hearings. The testimony of the current Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, chair in which he explained his stated view that he will force streaming services to alter their algorithms to promote or censor user-generated content has been key to this debate. Have you, or you along with the steering committee, considered the importance of having the new chair testify to clarify his or her views before we complete our study or vote, as this person will be key in implementing and interpreting Bill C-11?

Senator Wallin: I have a supplementary question.

Senator Housakos, you mentioned yesterday that you believe that more Indigenous voices should be heard during our committee hearings. I know we heard from APTN, but have you been able to extend any invitations, and, if so, to whom?

Senator Wallin: Because it has been raised on many occasions, I would put the same question to Senator Gold. I don’t know whether I’m allowed to do that.

Senator Wallin: Okay, I’ll do it another day.

[Translation]

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I’d like to direct my question to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Senator Omidvar, as you know, Canadian charities and NGOs — groups such as War Child — cannot provide humanitarian aid on the ground in Afghanistan because they would be breaking Canadian law. The government has been asked repeatedly to do what many of our allies have done and make a simple exemption to their anti-terrorism code.

Given our country’s broken promises to Afghanistan, I’m wondering whether the Social Affairs Committee could conduct a spot study on this matter to show the government how simple the fix is. It would also be a powerful gesture for many Afghans who have put their lives on the line for our soldiers — our men and women.