Debates of Oct. 30th, 2023

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the legislation is a form of modernization, given AI, technological changes and the global scene today. When we talk about trade agreements, Canada, this government, has been more successful at negotiating and signing off on trade agreements than any other government before us, quite frankly, and it is because Canada is a safe place to invest.

Would the member across the way not agree that updating the legislation is important given what is taking place around the world and the fact that Canada is a safe haven to make investments, which we have demonstrated through the different types of trade agreements we have been able to accomplish over the last number of years?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member would like to see the legislation updated. There was an amendment at committee that would bring in, subject to review, assets that were required by a state-owned enterprise. This was not the case before. For example, if we were going to buy the shares of a state-owned enterprise, that would be reviewable. However, if we were going to buy a single mine from a mining company, the asset itself would be reviewable, based on the amendment, if it were to pass in the House.

Does the member agree with such an amendment?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed the first part of the member's speech, so I hope he forgives me if he mentioned this.

The member sits on the science and research committee with me, which is looking into situations like this, where intellectual property and industry is leaving Canada because of foreign takeovers. I have talked to companies in the hydrogen tech sector, where, when they get to a certain size, they need some investment to expand to the next stage and the investment almost always comes from abroad, so the technology goes to China, the United States or Germany.

I wonder if the member could comment on that process and how this legislation could help that or what the government could do to help keep those technologies in Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to rise in this debate about securing the future for Canadians. With your indulgence, this is also my inaugural speech.

As I first stepped into the chamber, Fania Wedro, or Fanny as she was belovedly known, was on my mind. The last I saw her, she had offered up a bottomless spread of her legendary blintzes. I loved Fanny and even as her body began to fail it was the intensity of her eyes I remembered. This was a woman of indomitable strength. She survived the Holocaust. She built a business and a family with her husband Leo. She founded the Canadian Magen David Adom.

At the University of Calgary convocation where she received her honorary doctorate of law, the woman who was forced to shovel dirt over Nazi mass graves, which would have included her mother; the woman who escaped a fire-engulfed ghetto, taking refuge in empty pits; and hid in a forest for nearly a year, said this, “Don’t think that standing here before you is a 95-year-old woman. In front of you is a 14-year-old girl whose life was taken away, was left with no parents, no grandparents, no relatives, no one. And yet I had to go out into the world. And let me tell you...it’s a wonderful world. Spread light into the world. Cherish and respect your country.”

Shadows define the light. In her final days, as her new member of Parliament, I made a promise to Fanny that I would fight those who would tear our country down. I bade her farewell with a kiss on both her cheeks and, on her insistence, I took a blintz on the road. Fanny died days before her birthday, on August 27 this year.

As I stood at the entrance to this chamber, her memory was the blessing I carried here with me. Five days later, I watched this chamber be desecrated by the presence of a Nazi whose hate-filled collaborators were Fanny's oppressors.

In the last 21 days, I have watched the world forget “never again”, replaced instead with the horrifying resurgence of the ancient hatred unleashed by tyrants determined to unravel our alliances: an anti-Semitic regime in Iran; the anti-Semitic pogrom at a Russian airport; Beijing's anti-Semitic propaganda imposed on its people; mobs across our streets glorifying terror and death; trafficking in tropes and hearts having turned to darkness.

A soul I treasure deeply in Israel today reminded me recently that the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. Across every issue I have watched debated in this chamber, I do not see a determined government rising to this moment. I see indifference and the politics of division: the single mother who may not have a home come December, waking up to news that one part of the country would get relief from the carbon tax destroying her dreams, but that she would not; waking up to an indifferent government offering up electing Liberals as her answer rather than axing the hated carbon tax for everyone; the newcomer and young couple presented with performative announcements rather than shovels in the ground to build homes and generate jobs, unshackling the lives they wish to lead; and seniors who, after paying into the system for a lifetime, watch the invisible thief of inflation denying them the retirement they were promised and they earned. These are my neighbours. Across the country, our neighbours are hurting and, for them, the promise of Canada is broken.

As I stand here today, I represent a riding of people, including former MP Bob Benzen, a gentleman businessman, who goes to work every day for an energy sector under systemic attack by a government indifferent to the consequences of its decisions. Unlocking our resources and enabling investment is the single most important nation-building decision Canada could make today for the benefit of every Canadian.

The just transition legislation would kill directly 170,000 jobs. It would reward our rivals in Russia and Iran as they scale production, subvert sanctions and fund their war machine at discounted prices to Beijing. It would punish our friends who need more Canada.

At precisely the time when Canadian resources represent over $3 trillion that would fuel, feed and secure the world; bring home paycheques for our people; build energy projects reducing emissions; build economic reconciliation with first nations; and rebuild our Armed Forces, the Prime Minister and his radical NDP-Liberals repeat Trudeau the father's failed legacies such as the national energy program that former MP Bobbie Sparrow ferociously fought and rampant inflation of non-stop tax hikes. One retired prison guard in eastern Ontario told me that in his lifetime he had never seen the government give money for food since war time.

Do members remember what Preston Manning said when eulogizing his father, the premier who unleashed Canada's energy sector? He said, “Do not let...[apathy] do to Canada what wars and depressions and hard times were unable to do. Continue to build.” I take heart in knowing it was not just democracies that won the wars of their age but that it was also Conservatives. It was Sir John A. Macdonald who fashioned and forged what today is among the oldest democracies on earth, upon ideas of freedom and ordered liberty rather than linguistic or religious division. It was Sir Winston Churchill who was recruited, after experiments with appeasement failed, to confront fascism with iron will while cautioning about an iron curtain in the age to come. It was Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney who pursued policies of peace through strength to defeat communism and reverse bad economic decisions.

I rise in Parliament from a seat once held by Preston Manning, who built the modern Conservative movement, and by Stephen Harper, whose Conservative government, even through global economic calamity, delivered a prospering Canada at peace with itself and confident in its future. Today, in Parliament, the leader of His Majesty's official opposition, our Conservative leader, the next prime minister of Canada, has been described by Daniel Hannan, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, as the most important Conservative in the world today because his is the leadership of conviction and not division.

Amid all the crime, chaos, drugs, disorder, economic anxiety and diplomatic disaster, I have been reflecting on what constitutes the kind of strength it takes to be the fighter my neighbours elected. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes the following about government:

...it is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects—military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden—that is what the State is there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.

If what Lewis described is the purpose of the state, then what Natan Sharansky later writes about is the resiliency of the people for whom the state serves. He describes a town-square test, one in which anyone can walk into the middle of the town square and say anything they want, however odious it might be. The test distinguishes between a society of freedom and a society of fear; between a country capable of fierce debates and one ruled by state control, social unrest, and mob rule; between true patriot love at the heart of national life and the indifference of financial and moral corruption destroying it; and between those who build and those who are determined to tear everything down.

In the past eight long years, we have seen an NDP-Liberal wrecking ball take aim at and undermine 175 years of democratic tradition, resulting in broken trust across every institution in this country. We have seen Parliament and its honour be desecrated, in a chamber where government and opposition are separated by three sword lengths to engage in the fierce debates defining their age, with words not war, and where parliamentarians are elected as servants, not as masters of the people. All this is as clouds of war gather across faraway oceans: wars in the Middle East, war in Europe and the steady drumbeat of war in the lndo-Pacific, wars now threatening to overtake our streets and requiring leaders of conviction to step forward, pursue policies of peace through strength and unleash the freest, most prosperous country on earth.

Let me rise today in Parliament, the home of our democracy, as its newest member from Calgary Heritage, with an answer to the mob of woke ideologists and their allied extremists rolling across this land. Let me rise with an answer to those people, foreign and domestic, who would undo our democracy, imperil lives, erase history and attack our freedoms. Calgary Heritage is the rock upon which the woke wave of tyranny will crash and fail. Calgary Heritage will be a strong voice in a chorus of voices restoring the promise of this great country. Our heritage, our inheritance, is the very promise of Canada itself. For all the single mothers, we are going to restore the promise. For the senior, we are going to restore the promise. For the young couple and newcomer, we are going to restore the promise. We will never give in, never back down and never surrender before the cancel culture rage. To my dear and beloved friend, Fanny Wedro, I will never forget my promise to her. We will spread light into the world, we will cherish and respect this country and we will restore the promise of Canada, for her.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe for a moment that Canada is as dark and bleak as some Conservatives would try to portray, and that Canada is a broken country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The member makes reference to seniors. The reality is that Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing for seniors. In fact, he tried to bump up the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The member talked about women, specifically mothers. It was the current government that brought in the $10-a-day child care. I would encourage the member to read more than Conservative spin notes. At the end of the day, a lot of good things are happening in Canada, and one does not have to be as bleak as—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member for Calgary Heritage.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was partisan invective. I think it is always enriching to hear that in the chamber. We know that the member is a master of that in all his interventions. I have been here for only a minute, but I have been able to listen to his commentary. Sometimes I wonder what kind of fantasyland he is living in.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper left this country as a singularity among its peers. It was the fastest-growing economy on the planet. Its middle class was expanding while every other middle class in the world was retracting. It established trade deals with every region of the world, from Atlantic to Pacific, preparing us for the world to come and giving Canadians the opportunity to compete, invest and grow in stature in the world. He led a principled foreign policy that did not equivocate over simple issues of good versus evil. Let me just say that the former prime minister was a giant of our times and the best prime minister of my lifetime, and that I am grateful for his service.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I almost laughed when I heard about having good debates in the House and respecting democracy, because the Conservatives are some of the worst hecklers I have heard in the House.

The member spoke specifically about single moms. I also find it very disingenuous from a lot of Conservative males when they talk about struggling single moms. I actually was a single mom. In trying to provoke fear, the member just spoke about good and evil. This is the most toxic, violent place I have been in, in years, since the new leadership of the member for Carleton. I wonder whether my respected colleague can speak to some of the behaviours of the males in his party, its constant toxic masculinity and how he feels he can change that behaviour if he truly does respect democracy.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, of the 55,000 doors that my campaign members knocked on, 24,000 of which I did with a couple of friends, I had the opportunity to meet Canadians from all walks of life, Calgarians who are hurting and struggling under the yoke of NDP-Liberal tyranny. I have watched the NDP-Liberals spend the last number of years destroying their livelihoods, imposing a carbon tax on them that makes life completely untenable.

For the women, seniors, newcomers and young couples whom I represent and serve, the savings that would be accomplished by axing the carbon tax alone would allow them to think beyond the next two or three months. It would allow them to think about the way they would respond to the inflationary pressures of the time. Mortgage payments are out of control. The cost of groceries and food is out of control. The cost of fuel is out of control. This is all because of the poverty-crushing, identity-trafficking, NDP-Liberal coalition government.

I am here proudly to represent the idea that every human being has inherent dignity and worth, and that in us, they have a fighter.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was reminded, during my colleague's speech, of one of my favourite Ronald Reagan quotes, “The nine most [frightening] words in the English language are: I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.” Can the member comment on whether that is as true today of the Liberal government as it was of the Democrats when Mr. Reagan spoke of it?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, when government invents means to interfere in the lives of people, to control what they see and think online, and when government is sitting around wondering about ways in which it can try to solve problems for people, we usually see the expansion of the government doing things which are utterly unhelpful, ultimately. I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague because I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think the best government is the one that gets out of the way—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to present here today with respect to Bill C-34.

Before I start, I want to recognize a couple of local baseball teams in my riding that won provincial championships. This summer, it was the Kincardine Cardinals 13U baseball team and the Kincardine Cubs senior team. In our region in western Ontario, there is some of the best baseball in the country and maybe in North America, so it is great that both of those teams won and brought titles back to Huron—Bruce.

I would also like to recognize Mary Hughes and John Westerman from Bayfield, who hosted a tremendous event Saturday night. They invited all the volunteer firefighters from Bayfield to attend. It was a random act of generosity, and it was great to be a part of that. I congratulate them and thank all the volunteer firefighters.

When we look at the purpose of the Investment Canada Act and the depth and breadth of the goals of Industry Canada, it is probably very helpful to go to the beginning of some of the ideas and innovation in Canada, which is at the university and college level across this country. However, as some members here today with whom I am on committee would know, we are studying a number of topics at committee, one of which is state-owned interference at the university level. If Canadians read the headlines from a year ago, they would realize that there are some very concerning activities going on in Canadian universities, mainly through the People's Republic of China and some of the universities that focus on its defence.

My point is that if we think of a young person in university today, studying very hard in engineering or something to do with computers, for example, they would finish their degree, maybe get into some research afterwards and work in a few labs. However, they are really working to come up with the next idea that is going to be a game-changer for Canada, and there are all sorts of federal and provincial dollars. There are hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars that are allocated through NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC, all in the hope that this will be great for Canada, for innovation and for the next generation of businesses in this country. It is a multi-year, multi-decade, lifetime's worth of investment, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer through these organizations, in the young people, professors and researchers in our country. Out of all of those years of effort and partnerships with companies and so forth, there are good ideas and there are businesses that are started in this country. However, what is of concern today and going forward is the high cost of protection that is going to be required at Canadian universities that do the research.

At our committee last week, the SSHRC president, Ted Hewitt, announced that there is $125 million, $25 million a year, being allocated to universities to try to sift through all the applications to determine if there are safety risks to the research and whether the research is going to be brought back to the People's Republic of China and could be used against Canada or whether the idea could just basically be stolen. This is just the beginning of the high cost of protection and security in this country, which leads to looking at the Investment Canada Act and the benefit test, and many other items within the act. I will give one example, a little outside what we are looking at with Bill C-34, but in parallel: the recent purchase, within the last year, of Magnet Forensics located in Waterloo. If we look at the education and experience that those individuals have, and likely the grants they applied for with their business, whether through SR&ED, IRAP or any of the other taxpayer-led initiatives that provide ideas and support for these businesses, there is a lot of money that goes into this.

There is a lot of value being given to the Canadian taxpayer, including by the individuals who own the company and the workers who work there. However, the company was sold for $1.8 billion to a private equity company in the States. The threshold for the transaction to be reviewed is $1.9 billion.

Now, I am not saying this is a coincidence. I know there is a different threshold being proposed through this bill for different transactions. However, this one was an American company; obviously, we have a trade deal with the United States, and that was the threshold if purchased by a private equity company.

After all those years of support, all those years at university and everything else that goes into it, including SR&ED and IRAP, it is sold for $1.8 billion. I am happy for the founders. That is a great payday. However, if we think about it, eventually the majority of those jobs are going to head to the United States, and all those years are gone.

We have to ask ourselves this: Is that a net benefit for the Canadian taxpayer, the workers or the country that has provided all those dollars of support? We really have to question it.

I will give another example, and it is a company that I used to work for: Wescast Industries in Wingham, Ontario. At one time, it was the largest exhaust manifold supplier in the world, producing over 10 million manifolds a year. It was bought 11 years ago by Bohong Group, which is financed by the China Development Bank. The founders of the company, the LeVan family, were ready to move on. They needed a buyer. This one came forward.

However, I believe, if we look at it, that this acquisition should have been reviewed. It was much lower than the threshold, but if we look at the knowledge and the value that those jobs provided this country and my region, there is no way that the transaction should have been approved. Everybody in our area, of course, all the guys and gals I used to work with, knew what they were going to do. They were going to take all the ideas, skill and know-how back to their headquarters. Basically, when the bones were picked, they would shut it down and operate solely in China.

That is in fact what has happened over 11 years. That is a shame. It was a great place to work. There were so many people to get to know. There were thousands of employees across southwestern Ontario.

These are examples of where the Investment Canada Act and the net benefit test could do more. Specific to this bill, one great amendment that was accepted by the government was our amendment that set the level to zero for a review, when a company has connections or ties to being state owned. Therefore, everything would be reviewed, and we could look at it. This also lends itself to my belief that it should be more than just the minister. I realize that, in the beginning, it is not. However, at the end, the final decision should be from a cabinet that consists of members from all provinces and, hopefully, some of the territories, to really drill down and decide if it is a net benefit to the country. I think we will find that a lot of these acquisitions are not.

Another great example is one I made a note of. If members remember, a number of years ago, there was Retirement Concepts, which sold 20 or 21 retirement communities to Anbang Insurance. This should never have been approved. It was to nobody's net benefit in British Columbia. There is no way that a Chinese state-run insurance company should have been operating health care in this country.

I think we are coming to a close. I look forward to questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about decreasing the threshold. This was brought forward to committee, and it ultimately passed.

The government has said in the past that, if there are ways it could improve upon legislation, it is always open to good ideas. This can be compared with the former government, which never allowed amendments unless they were government amendments.

I see this as a positive thing. The question I have for the member is as follows: Given the very nature of Canada as being what most would say is a safe place to invest, because of the environment we are in, whether it is trading agreements or the dependency Canada has, in terms of wanting to expand where it can, could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we update the act?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important. Obviously, it has been over a decade since the act was reviewed, so that is great. However, the member sometimes gets mixed up on the trade deals. If we look back at the trade deals that have been approved in the last few years, they were all done by the Conservative Party. We took it right to the one-yard line. With the European trade deal, I know that the finance minister, who was the trade minister at the time, fumbled about 10 times before she got it into the end zone.

The member for Abbotsford, Gerry Ritz and Stephen Harper are really the people who did 99% of the work. Yes, the Liberals bobbled the football into the end zone, and they get the touchdown, but the heavy lifting was done by our government in previous years.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It sounds like he really studied the bill. When we give speeches in the House, I think it is important that we truly pay attention to the bill's content in order to elevate the debate and have meaningful discussions.

My colleague spoke at length about what he would like us to do to dive deeper into this matter. I would like to know what he would like the government to do when analyzing transactions. I have a specific case in mind. A few years ago, in my riding, Rona was sold. Because the purchase price was so large it exceeded the minimum threshold, the sale was reviewable under the Investment Canada Act. I wanted to know on what basis the Liberal minister at the time authorized the sale. I filed an access to information request, but the answer I got was that no records relevant to my request could be found. We wanted to know which analyses and studies the minister based his decision on. Apparently, he did not base his decision on any documents at all.

I want to ask my colleague whether he believes that due diligence is important when analyzing transactions.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is from my neighbour, who sits right behind me. He is a decent fellow; he has not hit me in the back of the head yet, so I appreciate that.

The fines and penalties are increasing. It is so important for businesses to know that Canada is open for business, but if someone is going to do an acquisition, they have to go into the office and disclose what their intentions are with the Canadian business and how they would like to conduct themselves. To answer the member's question, today there is not enough of that done in the beginning. Then we get into these 11th-hour scenarios where it is not good for the business or the government of the day, and the wrong decision is usually made.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague mentioned Anbang. Retirement Concepts is a company operating a retirement centre in my backyard, basically, in Summerland. It was in trouble before Anbang, a Chinese-owned insurance company, got involved; that was approved, as the member said, probably mistakenly. Then, Anbang was taken over by the Chinese government. The NDP put forward an amendment to the bill before us that would trigger a review, with a previously okayed deal, if there was a subsequent takeover by a state-owned enterprise.

Could the member comment on that and why the amendment did not pass through at committee?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is not wrong. That deal should never have been approved. There is no way. I remember reading about the deal, and I thought it was bad. This is why it is so important that they come, in the beginning, to the office and disclose. That would give the government and the officials plenty of time, and it should be reviewed at committee, as well. We should give the committees more power.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk on the update to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

When it comes to business investment, it is clear that, after eight years under the Prime Minister and the Liberals, the government is not worth the cost. Since coming into power, business investment per employee in Canada has actually dropped 20%. At the same time, business investment per employee in the U.S. has actually increased 14%. It puts things into perspective in terms of Canada's dropping productivity and, as we go forward, the fear of declining prosperity in our country. What is more shocking is that, in the very final year of the Harper government, Canada's business investment, as a percentage of GDP, was actually higher than that of the U.S. After eight years of the government, we are at about 15% lower.

According to the National Bank of Canada, for the first time ever, business investment is now lower in this country than housing investment is. We can think about all the manufacturing, oil production and everything else. The investment is actually lower than it is in housing.

Manufacturing capital stock is the lowest that we have had since 1988. Two-thirds of our 15 main industries experienced declines in business investments under the government, including wholesale trade, accommodation and food services, utilities, professional services and manufacturing. All these numbers fell prepandemic; this is not because of the pandemic.

The Business Council of B.C. has issued a report on investment in Canada, calling it “Stuck in the slow lane”. What better title is there for what is going on right now with investment in our country than being stuck in the slow lane? The report noted that, out of 38 members in the OECD, Canada is going to have the slowest economic growth over the next decades. We will have the lowest real GDP per capita growth in the OECD going forward. That has been brought up, I think, in previous speeches about Bill C-34 in this House. The report lists several reasons for this, among them, inefficient regulatory approvals. Does anyone remember Bill C-69? Of course, we have seen Bill C-69 ruled against by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the government will recognize what the Supreme Court has said and eliminate Bill C-69; however, Bill C-69 was only one of many regulatory burdens added by the government that has chased away business investment in this country.

The Business Council of B.C. also noted punitive tax rates as companies grow; lack of relief for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the carbon tax regime; and high internal trade restrictions. Something also noted in this report is that our anemic business investment would be all the worse if it backed Alberta out. Alberta has the highest per capita investment in the entire country. If we back out Alberta, our numbers are even worse. What do we get with the government? Every possible regulatory move, every possible attempt to strangle the growth in Alberta. Therefore, we have one province driving most of the business investment in this country, and the government is trying to destroy it.

There will be some members across the way, such as, perhaps, the member for Winnipeg North, who will get up to ask this: Are there not some things the government has done? Would we not agree that it is good? There are some things the government has done to spur business investment in Canada, such as green-lighting the purchase of ITF Technologies by a China-based company. This was a deal that the Harper Conservatives had kiboshed. The Liberals reversed it and allowed a China-based company to buy out ITF Technologies. ITF has done national security work with National Defence, and the government overrode the ban on a purchase by a China-based company. We should remember that China's national intelligence law of 2017 requires companies to “support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work”.

I will read that part again. It says Chinese companies “shall support, assist and co-operate with state intelligence work”, and we have the government approving the sale of a technology company that has done work for National Defence. It waived the security review of the Chinese takeover of Vancouver's Norsat, despite Norsat being involved in communication tech for Public Safety Canada, the defence department and the Coast Guard. Norsat had also done work for the Pentagon. The U.S. and our Five Eyes allies asked us not to allow the sale to go through, but it did.

When not allowing the sale of sensitive tech companies, the Liberals are going out of their way to bring Chinese regime companies into our security systems, such as Nuctech, which my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil talked about. Nuctech is called the Huawei of scanners. It is a Chinese-based company partially owned by the Chinese state. It has been fined, charged and convicted around the world over various fraud, regulatory and spying issues, and the government went out of its way to give it a contract to bring its technology into every embassy we have around the country.

The CBSA, which is meant to protect us, for some reason basically jury-rigged the RFP to ensure that only Nuctech, ahead of two Canadian companies, one in Quebec and one in Calgary, got the contract. It wrote in the requirements the exact specifications of a type of scanner, down to exactly how many inches across and how many inches high, and guess what. Only one company in all of the world happened to have a scanner that was 33 inches across and 21 inches high: Nuctech. Oddly enough, PSPC warned the government not to buy it, and the CBSA went ahead anyway.

When this was exposed, the government said it would hire an outside consulting company to do a review. Apparently, McKinsey was not available at the time, so it hired Deloitte, and for a quarter of a million dollars, Deloitte did what had been done at the mighty OGGO. Of course, I cannot make a speech without mentioning the operations and estimates committee. Deloitte exposed the fallacy of buying equipment from Chinese security companies. For a quarter of a million dollars, it came out with a four-page report that basically said Canada should not buy sensitive IT technology from despotic regimes.

I went to the West Edmonton Mall that week with the report and randomly asked kids and adults, strangers, about this, and they all laughed. Not one person said we should buy sensitive technology from despotic regimes.

I appreciate that the government is finally getting around to updating the issue with Bill C-34, but one major change the Conservatives would like to see is taking away the ability of a minister to make the final decision. We would like to see a minister bring it to cabinet so that cabinet is consulted. For an issue as important as our state security, too much power is left with the minister. The minister should be required to bring the purchase of a sensitive company elsewhere. Whether it is a mining company or a tech company, it should not be the role of the minister to decide. We have seen the government repeatedly bring bills to the House that would give ministerial power over such a thing, and we would like to see that change.

There were a couple of other amendments we brought up that were shut down, and I would like the government to reconsider them. One of them would modify the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state. This goes back to my previous comment about the Chinese intelligence law that forces those companies to act and assist in concert with that regime.

I will just briefly bring up a couple of other amendments that we would like to see. One is listing specific sectors necessary to preserve our national security rather than a systematic approach. Another is exempting non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the security review.

Islamic History Month

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Islamic History Month comes to an end, I will be reflecting on it and indeed on history in general. My recent meetings with the Ismaili community at the Aga Khan Museum and Ismaili Centre allowed me to see first-hand the artistic, intellectual and scientific contributions of Islamic civilization throughout history. The celebration I joined with the Dawoodi Bohras community in our area also highlighted the overall human progress this Muslim community has made.

Islamic history is rich and varied, like the histories of all faiths, cultures and peoples. The brilliance and creativity of all beings create this history. At times it is for the common good and at other times it is not, because as humans we are both amazing and flawed.

As we write this next chapter of our history and histories, I pray that we will all join hands and work for the common good. Let us show that we have learned from the past and evolved. As Canadians, we must reach out to one another with understanding and acceptance to ensure that our actions create a chapter that we can all be proud of.