Bill C-34

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

This enactment amends the Investment Canada Act to, among other things,
(a) require notice of certain investments to be given prior to their implementation;
(b) authorize the Minister of Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to impose interim conditions in respect of investments in order to prevent injury to national security that could arise during the review;
(c) require, in certain cases, the Minister of Industry to make an order for the further review of investments under Part IV.1;
(d) allow written undertakings to be submitted to the Minister of Industry to address risks of injury to national security and allow that Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to complete consideration of an investment because of the undertakings;
(e) introduce rules for the protection of information in the course of judicial review proceedings in relation to decisions and orders under Part IV.1;
(f) authorize the Minister of Industry to disclose information that is otherwise privileged under the Act to foreign states for the purposes of foreign investment reviews;
(g) establish a penalty not exceeding the greater of $500,000 and any prescribed amount, for failure to give notice of, or file applications with respect to, certain investments; and
(h) increase the penalty for other contraventions of the Act or the regulations to the greater of $25,000 and any prescribed amount for each day of the contravention.

[Aaron Shull, Managing Director and General Counsel, Centre for International Governance Innovation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and distinguished committee members, for the opportunity to speak today on this important bill. It's a pleasure to be here.

Indeed, maybe I'll start by saying something that you probably don't all hear very often: Thank you very much. It was a real pleasure to see this bill proceed with the pace and with all of the work you're doing.

We're independent and non-partisan, so when I say this, I genuinely mean it. I know how hard you're working. We're sitting here in the evening, and everyone's working away to get this done, so thank you very much.

It's in that spirit that I plan to make three arguments.

Number one is that activities covered by the proposed foreign influence transparency and accountability act should extend to municipalities, and we need definitional clarity around who is a public office holder.

Number two, the registry and the commissioner should be in place before the next federal election.

Number three, the act should nest within a broader national security strategy.

Now, let me tell you what I mean by those things.

First, we need to extend this to municipalities, and we need definitional clarity. Now, in Canada, the preamble of a bill is an important tool for looking at its statutory interpretation. I don't want to put everyone to sleep by talking about the tools of that interpretation, but let me just say that the preamble provides an introductory statement that sets out the guiding principles, the values and the objectives of the legislation.

The preamble for the Foreign Influence and Transparency Accountability Act says:

Whereas efforts by foreign states or powers and their proxies to influence, in a non-transparent manner, political and governmental processes at all levels of government in Canada have systemic effects throughout the country and endanger democracy, sovereignty and core Canadian values;

I pause there to dwell on “all levels of government”, and just the impact of that.

Now we have to look at how it applies. The application of the act applies to:

(a) federal political or governmental processes;

(b) provincial or territorial political or governmental processes;

And, essentially, it applies to the governmental processes of indigenous groups and governments.

Now you have to look at the definitions. You go through them, and there's a definition of “public office holder”, but it's different in the Security of Information Act.

We're not covering municipalities here, and we have two different definitions in the same bill about what a public office holder is, so we're probably going to want to take a hard look at that.

If you contrast that with the Security of Information Act, what the bill says is that:

Every person commits an indictable offence who, at the direction of...or in association with, a foreign entity...engages in surreptitious or deceptive conduct...with the intent [to influence a political or governmental process, educational governance etc., etc., with a democratic right in Canada.]

It goes on to define a public office holder differently, and so now you have two pieces of legislation wrapped up in the same bill, effectively trying to do the same thing with different definitions of what a public office holder is.

I wonder why you wouldn't have concomitant obligations for registration. It's two sides of the same coin.

In my view, the SOIA provides the legal teeth to prosecute and punish covert foreign operations, while the FITAA—I don't know if that's what we're calling it, but I'll call it the FITAA—complements this by creating a preventive transparency regime aimed at exposing and deterring such activities through mandatory disclosure and public oversight.

It's a dual approach—deterrence and, hopefully, long-term preventative transparency.

Secondly, we must have the registry in place before the next federal election. You have to again go back to the purposes of the act, like we did at the beginning—“in Canada have systemic effects throughout the country and endanger democracy, sovereignty and core Canadian values”. It's not “might” have systemic effects; the bill says “have systemic effects”. It is a statement of fact.

If you were to meet that purpose, how can you not have it in place before the next federal election? It would be a little bit like bringing a birthday cake for a Saturday afternoon party on the following Tuesday. You will have missed it.

I watched the officials testifying. If it's too hard to do it all at once, just go with the federal government, the federal election. Roll it to provinces and municipalities separately and after. However, you have to get the birthday cake to the party.

Thirdly, it should nest within a broader national security architecture. The defence policy update said we're going to do a national security strategy every four years. The defence policy is going to be updated every four years. We have Bill C-26 that went through this committee, which I was happy to testify about. We have the CSE Act that's due for an update, a review, in 2022. The CSIS Act is now on a five-year review cycle. Bill C-34, on the Investment Canada Act....

This is all coming together. I think the point here is to look at all of the pieces of legislation and all of the various strategies—critical minerals, intellectual property, innovation, research, economic security. Look at them systematically, because adversarial states are looking at them systematically, believe me, and it requires a strategic approach.

As I said at the beginning of this, I've had the privilege of speaking with some of you before. I know how hard this committee works, and I know that you can do it, but I would just encourage you to think strategically and not just do the whack-a-mole thing on one piece of law.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it obviously was that way. I attended some of the natural resource committee hearings and meetings on that, and it seemed that the government members there were totally opposed to considering any other additions that could fix, help or improve the bill. That is obviously not the experience I have had in some other committees. In particular, I am vice-chair of the industry committee, a very collegial committee on Bill C-34, which amended the Investment Canada Act, and the government agreed to many of the amendments the opposition made.

Right now there are many amendments to Bill C-27, perhaps one of the most consequential bills that Parliament has dealing with privacy and artificial intelligence, a complete replacement of our Privacy Act, and we have already passed six amendments to the bill from all parties. The government is operating in a very different way in very different committees, which surprises me, but maybe it should not surprise me that it does one thing in one place and says another thing in another place.

[Kate McNeece]

That's a very 30,000-foot question, and I'm afraid it's a bit above my pay grade. My comments were restricted to the Competition Act, which is covered in Bill C-59. However, I also deal with the Investment Canada Act, which governs the review of foreign investment going into Canada. We've seen a number of changes under the Investment Canada Act as well. Bill C-34 recently received royal assent. It is not yet enforced, but I think it soon will be.

The issue with foreign investment is multifold. First, there's a great deal of regulatory uncertainty for foreign investors who are subject to the Investment Canada Act in terms of what will be required of them. The national security provisions of the act are quite broad and are being applied more broadly. I think there is a lack of transparency in what investors can expect, especially in areas that aren't traditionally thought of as related to national security. You can think of defence and the military, but increasingly we're looking at investments in critical minerals and critical infrastructure as being very important to Canada's national security. Those categories are getting very broad.

The pending amendments that will come into force shortly will implement a mandatory reporting regime for certain investments in critical areas for prescribed businesses that involve prescribed rights. However, those will all be defined by regulations, of which the business community and the bar have not seen any drafts. There's a great deal of uncertainty right now as to where the foreign investment regime is heading.

Separately, I know the Canadian government and a number of people working in the civil service at ISED and other investment-related arms are doing good work in reaching out to foreign entities that may have an interest in investing in Canada. I've worked with a number of clients who have been the subjects of that type of outreach and who have come to Canada. We've worked with them in that context, so I know that work is being done. However, I think the more clarity we can get around the new amendments to the Investment Canada Act, the better, from a foreign investment perspective.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act; Bill C-67, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024; Bill C-68, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the committee, witnesses.

For Ms. Pratt from the Competition Bureau, in terms of the teeth of the Competition Bureau, if I can use that analogy, I believe that what's in Bill C-34 and what's in Bill C-59 currently have been probably two decades overdue in terms of the changing competitive environment we operate in and also the nature of a number of industrial sectors in Canada where concentration is an issue. You can chalk it up to geography, capital requirements, investment and so forth.

I want to get on the record how important the changes were to the Competition Act in Bill C-34 and now in Bill C-59, from your point of view, in looking at combinations, mergers, acquisitions, inverse deals or whatever term you want to use.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Going back to the beginning, obviously, congratulations to Parliamentary Secretary Turnbull on the addition of a new family member.

To Brian Masse and the whole New Democratic family, but really to all Canadians, we lost a passionate and great Canadian we were blessed to have for so many years. I still remember the first election campaign I paid close attention to at a young age. I think it was in 1988 and I was about 14 years old. It was the free trade election. I will never forget the debates that we were able to watch and that Mr. Broadbent participated in, and the passion he brought to workers and how he fought for all Canadians.

Rest in peace. I send my prayers to his family and friends.

To Mr. Masse, I very much enjoyed your analysis of the wireless industry. It has always been the goal of governments—I say “governments” on purpose—to ensure that we have four participants in the wireless industry. We used to use terms in the private sector such as the “quad four bundle”.

With new participants coming in, how will they be financed? If you look around the world, in literally every country, it's very unusual to have more than three wireless participants in most countries—large participants, as I would say. Here in Canada, getting to four participants in our markets has been a goal that, I think, we've achieved on many levels. Obviously, we need to continue to monitor it.

There are big sunk costs to enter into the market, whether they're on the wireless side or the wireline side, with the Internet or cable, and all of the changes in technologies that have taken place over the top and so forth. Now we have the idea that you can become a straight aligned wireless provider and not provide any other services. There are even those thoughts happening within countries.

I enjoyed your comments on the wireless spectrum and how that happens. For folks who want to understand, auctioning the wireless spectrum is a pure economic theory that is done. What's behind it is quite fascinating.

The issue here, and I agree with Minister Champagne's comment, is that now is not the time for wireless companies to be raising rates on consumers and hard-working Canadians. I agree with the minister on that front. Canadians—my constituents, like all constituents—have been through a lot in the last few years. We've had COVID. We've had global inflation. We have a war in Ukraine that continues on and has ramifications. We know with global inflation that people's pocketbooks have been pinched, to say the least.

We, as a government, have acted in unison with parties to put in place measures to help Canadians, whether on a temporary basis, like the GST/HST credit and the grocery rebate, or on a permanent basis, like the Canada child benefit and the national early learning and child care plan.

Here in the province of Ontario, by September 2025, we will have $10-a-day day care on average for Ontarians. I just met with the officials in York Region and went through how that is going.

I'm moving toward a national dental care plan. I was, much like many of my colleagues, with our seniors just last night, talking about the implementation of that and how it's going to save seniors. It's going to save nearly nine million Canadians literally hundreds of dollars, and sometimes thousands of dollars.

Going back to the issue at hand and looking at this sector, being relatively new to the committee during the last several months, and going to Mr. Lemire's....

Good afternoon, Mr. Lemire. I would like to wish you a happy new year.

Going to his, what I would call, umbrella motion that was brought forward, I think it definitely needs to be done. We definitely need to take a look at the dynamics within the market. For those of us who like to follow the industry closely, there's always the CRTC monitoring report that comes out annually. It's a 300- or 400-page booklet that gives you a lot of information on market shares, pricing and dynamics.

Do you know what? It is a statistical fact that a lot of pricing changes have taken place over the last several years. There have been significant decreases in the various plans that are out there.

At the same time, we're very cognizant that Canadians, including ourselves.... As Brad said, we go to the grocery store, and we see what the prices of goods are. I have three kids at home, and I know very well what it's costing to raise these three girls I'm blessed with. I'm very cognizant of that, and I always fight for my constituents to make sure that their lifestyles and the expenses they face day to day are affordable, that there is no price-gouging going on, and that there are no anti-competitive practices going on.

I will remind the committee of Bill C-34, which was passed in this committee, on competition, and there are other measures that we've been putting in place in the recent legislation we brought to Parliament under Minister Champagne on anti-competitive practices. It's really important that we continue to follow this vein.

Again, who are we fighting for? As Ms. Ferreri said, we're fighting for our constituents. We're ensuring that prices continue to decrease. We're ensuring that, when transactions happen in the marketplace, they're not detrimental to consumers. We're ensuring that consumers are benefiting from the most recent technology, whether it's 5G or AI and so forth in that vein. We continue to do that.

I look at Sébastien's motion, and I think it's incredibly important that we look at that because each committee is the master of its own domain. It gets to pick and choose what it studies and what it doesn't study. It gets to pick and choose, in addition to when the report is issued, whether there's a minority report that it wishes to issue or if there's a dissenting report that can also be done. That's the flexibility in committees.

I would like to add, Mr. Chair, that it's very important that we also have in front of us Bill C-27. I say to my parliamentary and esteemed colleagues from all parties that the nature of artificial intelligence and the nature of privacy and how it applies to all 40-plus million Canadians in this beautiful country are things that we really need to get to the—if I can use a football analogy—end zone on in a very diligent, very judicious way.

We know that the Europeans are on it. We know that the U.S. and other jurisdictions are on it. We need to show the professionalism, which we always do, and the leadership as industry committee members on what some would consider and what I would consider is probably one of the most important evolving technologies that we will see in our lifetimes. Potentially, from what I've been reading and from what other folks who I think are probably much wiser or smarter than me are saying, it will transform the way we do many things, and it is transforming the way we do many things in life. Hopefully it will be a beneficial mechanism to the standard of living of literally hundreds of millions, if not billions, of individuals in this world.

I'll just circle back and finish up briefly—Mr. Chair and colleagues, I thank you for your patience—with regard to the motion and why we're here today.

Thank you, Mr. Perkins, for bringing this motion.

We are parliamentarians. We do work every day, whether it's in our constituency offices helping our constituents or looking at legislation issues within our committee purviews. We do need to make sure that our citizens are benefiting from technologies and from market transactions that take place. We do need to make sure that they are seeing the benefits, whether it's lower prices on goods and services or it's improved competition, which drives innovation and prices. We need to see that.

I'm pro-capitalism; I'm pro-markets. The last thing I like to see is anti-competitive practices being adopted. To go back and finish up, I'm in full alignment with Minister Champagne. Now is not the time to be raising prices on Canadian consumers, whether it's a small percentage of customers or not. It's really important that consumers out there have confidence in the services they're receiving.

I know that a lot of us have plans at home with whichever wireless provider we have for services. I tend to call them all the time to ask what new pricing plans they have. We should all pressure them all the time to make sure that we're getting the best services and the best prices for the plans that we have.

It behooves the committee to continue to put that pressure on companies—especially on companies for which the fact of the matter is that there is no foreign competition. These are domestic participants. They've invested literally hundreds of billions of dollars in their businesses in totality.

I've covered this sector for many years. Whether it's at Bell, Telus or Rogers, the employees who work there are very proud to work there. They do a great job and they've invested billions of dollars in their businesses, building out.

I was reading today.... I grew up in northern British Columbia. I believe Rogers has invested more funds along the Highway of Tears—which is close to Prince Rupert, where I grew up—to Prince George. Anybody who has driven along that line of road, which is roughly 740 kilometres or so, will know there are many parts that have never had cellphone service in those areas in northern B.C.

That applies, as Mr. Lemire said.... When you look at rural Canada, our geographic landscape and the need and necessity for these companies to invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions of dollars, in building out cell towers and building out their services, they are investing in our communities.

We want them to be good corporate partners. We want them to be even better corporate citizens. We understand the interests they need to balance. At the same time, we know Canadians need to be assured of the affordability of life and that they're receiving the measures and the help they need to have. That's where I come in and say, “Do you know what? Now is not the time for price increases on Canadians.”

Thank you, Chair. I will turn it back to you and the next speaker.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Am I? How can you tell? I have so much hair.

We asked him for his emails and for mentions made of him in the drafting of Bill C-34 to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Now, just to shake it up a little, I think, in analyzing these access to information requests, the creativity in the innovation department comes through in their response in this one. Instead of saying, as they did in the past, the number of 2,960 days, they became very creative on this one and said 2,440 days.

File, print, memo, sort, sent.... Apparently, it's a difficult thing in the innovation department. Maybe the government screening doesn't allow them to go on YouTube. I don't know. Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. If they can go on YouTube, at least they could do it at home, because I know they're dedicated public servants. They could go home and google it on YouTube on their home computers if they wanted to see how to print an email on Outlook, if they don't have an IT department in the innovation and industry department.

Like I say, I'm a generous fellow and I have an excellent staff. I can send 23-year old Graham O'Brien over in between working on my legislative stuff and working on the master's degree that he's taking right now at the same time. He's a very talented man.

He's doing all of that. Because he does get paid by the House of Commons, I will allow him, during question period—that's the only time—to go over to the industry department and show them. Maybe the government members could organize this meeting; perhaps I should ask the minister if he'd be willing to sit in on the meeting. Graham can do a tutorial for the department about how to hit “File” and then “Print”. It's a difficult thing. Here's a pro tip: It's “File” and then “Print”.

It was 2,440 days—very creative— but that's where the creativity ended, because on the next one, when we asked for the emails, memos and texts with regard to CPC amendment 2.... Now, remember that some of the CPC amendments had 2,690 days or something else. Apparently when they were running this one through their AI machine for how they were going to respond to it, they didn't tell the AI machine to, when we submitted an order to them, actually vary the number of days to make it look like they put some creativity and thought into this, that they actually put some work into finding out whether or not this could be done in a meaningful, open and transparent way, as Mr. Masse wishes for in this memo and as government members apparently support, since they skipped over my motion.

I guess they were offended by my motion. It's unfortunate. They must have been offended by my motion, since my motion at the beginning of this meeting.... I know how fascinating you're finding these access to information requests, but all of this could have been avoided if we were debating my motion now and you hadn't skipped over it.

I know the government members were afraid of my motion because it said to let the Parliamentary law clerk determine what can be released and what can't, not government officials who clearly are very open and transparent; not government members who have been saying that they haven't read the contract. The Minister of Industry said that he never read this contract on Stellantis. The Minister of Health said he never read the Medicago contract before writing a $150-million cheque to the largest company in Japan, claiming that it required an advance payment.

Guess what? I read the contract. I did. In fact, I have it here now if you want to see it. Graham has it with him, because Graham is a diligent staffer. He always comes prepared.

That contract does not have an advance payment clause, as the minister claimed before committee, but then how would the Minister of Health know? The previous minister of health actually negotiated the contract.

When I asked him if he had read the contract, he said no, so perhaps that's why he didn't know it existed. However, when I asked him and told him that the advance payment clause wasn't in that contract, he turned to his deputy minister, one of these fellows from the industry department, and asked, “Is he right?”

So—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's great.

How are we doing on those...? Oh, Graham has left. He's gone to get the other 110 access to information items—ATIPs, as they call them. There's another acronym: ATIP.

Let's talk about why, because this is the heart of what Mr. Genuis is trying to do. I appreciate MP Masse's very humorous comment about my attempt to do a subamendment. I take it in the spirit with which he and I always kibbitz.

The spirit of the amendment to Mr. Masse's motion is transparency. Transparency is what we want to have and what we thought we all wanted to have. Certainly, when this Liberal government was elected with their sunny ways slogan in 2015, they made a lot of commitments about government transparency: that this would be the most transparent government in the history of the country, that they would ensure committee business would not be influenced by parliamentary secretaries, that the committees would be more independent, and that they would ensure that we would have open access through access to information, better access to information laws and more open and transparent government.

After eight years, it appears that the transparency they like and the transparency they're protecting is a transparency that matters only when it suits their political means. When it harms their political means, they will use every trick in the book to try to stop that transparency. Why? Why is it that they would do that?

Well, as you know, at the launch of these contracts, the Prime Minister said that this would create lots of local construction jobs in southwestern Ontario—thousands, in fact—and it would create lots of local jobs when it came to permanent jobs, and that this would be, as they called it, the saving of the hundred thousand jobs in the auto business that we have in Ontario. Right now, the average cost to save those 3,000 jobs in total in one plant—so the total in all of them—is about five million dollars a job.

In terms of job creation, in the evolution from the Auto Pact through to the protection of the auto industry in the open markets and the free trade agreement in the United States, which the United States passed in 1989, to the further North American Free Trade Agreement, which integrated and guaranteed good-paying union auto jobs as part of the Mexico-Canada-United States relationship on auto production, I'd say that not only has it produced good jobs and a good stable industry, but it has also produced the best cars in the world.

The government now is engaged in an exercise of catch-up—not ketchup like you put on your hamburger, but catch-up. They're catching up to the IRA. President Biden caught them flat-footed. He said, “Here's what we're going to do. We're not going to impose a carbon tax in the United States like Canada does. That would be foolish, because a carbon tax doesn't work. What we're going to to do is invest in technology, not taxes.”

What an idea: Let's invest in technology and not taxes. They used something called ITCs—more acronyms—and PTCs—more acronyms. ITCs are called input tax credits and PTCs are called production tax credits—in other words, government tax breaks to companies that do certain things. In the IRA, they put in a clause that says if you assemble EV batteries in the United States to go into EV vehicles assembled in the United States, you will have a massive subsidy for the next little while.

Here's what the IRA says about that subsidy. It's something, I guess, they don't want us to see in these contracts, whether or not these contracts actually do what they say on this. The IRA says that between now and 2029, 100% of the cost of assembling those batteries will be covered by the taxpayer—100%.

If you're a global company out of Germany or Korea, who wouldn't sign up for that deal? An EV battery is 40% of the cost of the car. The United States says, “No problem. We'll subsidize 40% of the production of the car to the manufacturer”, immediately increasing the profitability, massively, of these expensive vehicles. Since there isn't a market for them, because nobody will pay the retail price of those cars, we'll subsidize the cars on the other end too. We'll give the consumer a subsidy of $7,500 per car.

If you can believe this, folks, we're taking a car that will sell for $50,000, and we're saying that the taxpayer will pay 40% of the cost to build that car through 2029, but Stellantis, Ford and Volkswagen will make 100% profit off that. Then we're going to further subsidize $7,500. You're talking about potentially a $25,000 to $30,000 taxpayer subsidy on the cost of a $50,000 vehicle.

The Trudeau government says, “Sign me up. I think that's a good deal. I'm busy shutting down the resource industries that drive our economy, pay for our health care and pay for everything.” The growth that we have, our greatest global competitive advantage, is from our natural resources: oil and gas, forests, minerals, mines, fisheries, agricultural, renewable resources. We're busy shutting all those down on an extreme agenda, and we're going to replace them with an industry of central planning, of state capitalism, through which it is the state that actually subsidizes private sector companies, not private capital.

That's what the IRA does, in the extreme in this case. Do you know what? The United States government isn't out there hawking that thing very much. The congressional budget officer said that this is going to cost $30 billion to $40 billion. He was clearly underestimating it, because in Canada we're already spending, with three plants, over $40 billion on three assembly plants.

If you're going to do that and if you're going to push forward the idea of a 100% subsidy on batteries through 2029.... By the way, the IRA says in the year after that—I'm sorry that I meandered a bit—it goes to 75%, and the next year it goes to 50%, and the next year it goes to 25%. Over those years, that's the percentage the taxpayer is going to pay in covering the cost of the batteries in the IRA.

That's supposedly what's in these contracts, because the minister said they are the same as the IRA. I'd love to see that publicly. I'm sure the public would like to see that we're 100% subsidizing Volkswagen so that Volkswagen has an increase in profitability in the cars they sell by 40%. It's at 100%, then 75% and all that, and then in 2033 there is no subsidy. At least, that's when the IRA part of this ends, if it doesn't extend. We know that the minister has said publicly that if the U.S. Congress extends the IRA, then they'll extend the subsidy, so we can expect that this is in the contract.

These are really jobs that won't exist unless there is a $1,000-a-household, per manufacturer, subsidy. I have to tell you that the people in my riding, as much as they love the auto jobs, are not keen that $1,000 of their tax dollars is for Volkswagen, which has more revenue than the Government of Canada, and that another $1,000 of their taxpayer money is for Stellantis, which has more annual revenue than the Government of Canada.

We're actually subsidizing companies that have more money than Canada. The incredible part of this is that the NDP members rail on against corporate profits. We hear it all the time in the House: Corporate profits are bad. Well, actually, corporate profits produced the phones all the NDP members use, and the computers they're logged onto here are produced through corporate profits and the innovation that comes from that. If corporate profits are bad, I'm left scratching the few hairs I have left on my head about how that's consistent with taking these companies that are larger than the Government of Canada and paying 40% of the cost of the production of their vehicle when they get 100% of the profit.

You'll say to me, “But Rick, it's helpful, because these cars will be sold in Canada and they'll help reduce our carbon footprint in Canada.” You know what? You'd be wrong. I know that it's an assumption you would make, but do you know that Volkswagen does not have an assembly plant for internal combustion engines or an EV plant in this country? Do you know how many plants they plan to build assembling EVs or internal combustion engines in Canada?

I'm asking the members on the government side. Please tell me, in all of this great work, in the negotiations and the fine contract discussions you've done that you're trying to hide, how many commitments you got to have a battery plant and then a car assembly plant from Volkswagen or Stellantis in Canada? I'm listening.

Wow. They usually heckle me, but they're silent now, because you know what the answer is? It's zero—not a single plant.

Now prove me wrong. Release the contract. Maybe it's in the contract, but because of the silence, I suspect it's not. You know why it's not? It's because Volkswagen has already said where these batteries are going. Do you know where they're going? Come on; I know you're listening intently. I know the government members know where they're going. Help me out here.

Help me out here: Where are they going?

I know they're laughing. The camera won't show them.

Where they're going is Tennessee. They're going to get trucked. Heavy, heavy EV batteries for an EV Volkswagen car are going to be put in an 18-wheeler driven by diesel and will go to Tennessee. That really helps the carbon footprint of that EV. Then the vehicle is assembled in Tennessee. Guess where the vehicles assembled in Tennessee are sold? Come on....

Garnett, you must know where vehicles in Tennessee are sold. They're sold in the United States. The Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing vehicles to be sold in the United States.

“Sign me up for that deal,” say the Liberals. “I'll subsidize almost half the car and I'll give it to foreign multinationals so they can make more profit.” They're supported by their NDP coalition partner in this. We'll increase the profitability of these foreign multinationals by almost 40% on each vehicle. We'll do that so that we can sell the cars in the United States.

You know what? Let's assume President Biden, the Democrats and Republicans see the light and discover they can't afford to subsidize these cars anymore. Now, they're not really subsidizing them, because we're the ones who are out there marketing and saying “Don't go to the U.S.”, so they don't actually have to pay for what's in the IRA; we're the ones paying for the IRA—Canadian taxpayers.

Let's just assume that all of this is true. You're Stellantis, you're Volkswagen and you're Ford in Quebec, and when the subsidies end in 2033 and you have to pay for 100% of the cost out of your own capital of your own shareholders for the heaviest part of the vehicle—the battery—where do you think that's going? Do you think they're going to continue to truck from Windsor and St. Thomas, Ontario, and from Quebec? Do you think they're going to continue to truck those batteries to the Midwest and the southern U.S. to be assembled in the plants? If you believe that it will exist without more subsidy, then you've never worked in a business. You've worked for a not-for-profit. Maybe you've done good work at a not-for-profit and a community charity, but that isn't the way that it goes on. It doesn't work that way. Once the subsidy ends, the biggest part of any kind of business like this....

I was in the retail business for many years—a large retailer—and the biggest cost to the people whose products we sold, and to our operations, was actually trucking the stuff around—moving the product, touching the product, moving it from place to place, putting it in an 18-wheeler. That's what costs money. That's what eats up your margin. The last thing you want to do is touch the product and move it halfway across the North American continent to be put in another vehicle.

The earnestness with which my colleague from Windsor West, whom I do quite admire, believes that these jobs will continue to exist after that.... I believe that the only way they will continue to exist is if there is a clause in these contracts that says, “You know what? You have to pay back every dollar of these subsidies the minute you move this plant out of Canada.”

Now, anyone who knows how to negotiate a contract.... I'm not a lawyer, but I am a corporate strategist and a marketer. I've been on boards. I would never let my company and my government sign a contract that says that after receiving $15 billion of taxpayer money you're free to go—adios, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. That's what this government has probably done in these contracts: “Oops, I forgot.”

I have to tell you that I had an ADM for industry in committee the other day on the green slush fund scandal. You guys all know about that. It's yet another scandal. I have a spreadsheet in the office for trying to keep track of all of these scandals.

The ADM for the SIF program, the strategic investment fund, was at the committee. He is the ADM who is responsible for this contract. There was another ADM there, and the deputy minister. I like to call the SIF program the sieve program. It's more appropriate, because it's basically a Liberal slush fund that goes out to any corporate partner who wants to come in here to sell Canadians' IP off to the world. For instance, Nokia came to Ottawa. “Oh, please, give us a couple of jobs. We'll give you $40 million. We'll help pay for the IP you develop and you take back to Europe, but we're happy you gave us 12 jobs.”

It's so Canadian, and it's destroying our economy. We have the lowest per capita productivity in the OECD, and that's happened over the last eight years. Our per capita income—the productivity of our workers—for decades was essentially the same as the United States. Since 2015, the U.S. is now 40% more productive than we are. Those numbers are only getting worse. We see that the U.S. economy is growing at 5% right now, and we're in a statistical recession after two quarters. We have negative growth.

Apparently, according to the Liberal government, it's the dog ate my homework. Everybody else in the world is responsible for the fact that our economy is dead, stalled, not going anywhere, while the U.S., our most important trading partner—we are on the same continent—has an economy that is growing five times faster than ours. We're saying, “Oh, sorry. Let's impose some more taxes. Let's shut down industries that have capital on their own to finance them and produce wealth for Canada. Let's shut those down, and let's take taxpayer money and subsidize foreign multinationals and be thankful for those jobs.”

Now, that's bad enough, but what's even worse is that we're not even getting those jobs. There are 1,600 foreign replacement workers coming in from South Korea. Apparently $15 billion buys you...I don't know, 2,300 jobs, 1,600 for this.... You do the math: It's 700 Canadian jobs. Wow, I bet they're lining up to come here. Why wouldn't they? Sign me up. Pay half my costs of what I'm doing. I can bring in all the foreign workers I like. They will pay taxes back in the country where I'm headquartered, and the Canadian government will sign a deal with me.

Come on, guys. Prove me wrong. Release the contracts. Set them free. Reassure Canadians if you think we are wrong, if you claim we're wrong. You can stop all of this by simply releasing the contracts, and the NDP can stop all of this by correcting the typos in their motion and accepting Mr. Genuis's amendments to make sure that the motion earnestly put forward is consistent with what the NDP has said publicly.

These are just two of the examples for “Let's rely on the Access to Information Act to get the contracts.” These are just two of them. I was looking for all 112 of them, Graham. We have two here. We have a few examples here.

I told you about the one for Mr. Schaan, right? This is the efficiency of the innovation department that doesn't know how to click “File” and “Print”. For the schedule for Mr. Schaan, a senior assistant deputy minister, it took 4,015 days to click “File” and “Print” for one year of his schedule. They're either really inefficient at that department or they don't know how to use YouTube and Google to find out how to print a schedule. As I said, I could bring Graham over.

That's just one. They said it would take 4,015 days, and that's for the assistant deputy minister.

Look at this one, the Access to Information Act reference here in the bottom part of MP Masse's motion. This is how effective that is. We said, “Please provide the emails for Mark Schaan.” He's a very likeable fellow. He's been at the Industry committee. We have a lot of legislation at the industry committee, a number of bills, and he's the government person who is there, and he seems to know his answers. He's the senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation, policy sector. Wow—how do you fit that on a business card? It probably goes over onto the back.

We asked for his schedule from.... I have to tell you. I exaggerated. I apologize to the committee, Mr. Chair. I exaggerated. We didn't ask for his schedule for a year; we asked for it from May 1, 2023, to September 30, 2023. We actually asked for a few months of his schedule, not a full year, but it says right here that it's 2,960 days to print a schedule of about five months. That looks obstructionist to me. I don't know about you. It seems as though they don't want to share their schedules. They're hiding something, just as they're hiding the contracts.

Here's another one: “Please provide emails and texts from May 1 to September 30” in relation to a single amendment. We made amendment CPC-6. That's another acronym, but it was Conservative Party amendment number six to Bill C-34, the bill that changed the Investment Canada Act, which is stalled in the Senate because the Liberals won't move it forward. On Bill C-34, we said to give us the emails and messages from between May 1 and September 30 of this year around that one single amendment.

Apparently doing a search for the word “C-27” in emails is a big task at the Department of Innovation, Science and Industry. There doesn't seem to be much industry there, because it's 1,920 days to do that.

This is the efficiency and the great abuse that government departments do with respect to the Access to Information Act, on which Mr. Masse is depending for a clean and honest accounting of the contract on behalf of the government.

Here's another one, a request for emails and messages with regard to our amendment CPC-5 on Bill C-34. Apparently doing a search of emails for “CPC-5” will take 1,920 days. It goes on. For “CPC-7” for that same bill, it's 1,920 days.

Do we sense a pattern here? The pattern is obstruction, I believe.

CPC-9 was 1,920 days. Apparently.... Wait for it. This is a good one. For emails regarding CPC-8—not CPC-7, not CPC-9, but CPC-8— for Bill C-34 for the same period of time, May 1 to September 30, it takes 1,400 days. Apparently, it's 500 days fewer to search for CPC-8 than it is for CPC-7 or CPC-9.

In order to determine that, they must have done some sort of search to say that somehow that's 500 days fewer for the department of innovation to do a search on their IT program. Maybe the people that designed the Phoenix pay system for this government are answering these access to information requests.

Another one here is from May 1 to September 30. Mr. Masse is asking for access to information to play a role in this, but here's how effective access to information is. We asked for emails from May 1 to September 30 of this year from Jamieson McKay, director general, strategy and innovation policy, in reference to Bill C-34. You would think a strategy guy, a director general....

For those who don't know and who are watching, you have these policy people, and then you have the hierarchy of directors or the bosses of policy people, and then you have.... In everything in government, you get paid by how many people you manage. The higher up you get, the more pay you get. Of course, there's a director general above a director, so the director general manages a lot of directors. That gives them more pay. This guy is a director general. Above a director general is something called an “assistant deputy minister”. There is a whole whack of assistant deputy ministers above these directors general. Those folks all report to a deputy minister. That's the hierarchy for all those.

Just so you know, the director general of strategy and innovation apparently has difficulty doing a search on his emails for six months for the term “C-34”. It's a big bill. It amends an important act, the act that deals with foreign investment into Canada and whether the Chinese continue to be allowed to buy up everything in Canada. This guy is a big player in developing that act. We asked for his emails on that. Apparently, it's complicated.

“It's Complicated”: There once was a movie called that, but I'll go there another time.

It's complicated, because it's 2,960 days to do a search and print the emails. It must be an awful lot of paper.

I would think the government members.... I think that if I went to Mr. Sousa's email and said, “I want you to organize his emails, the sent side”.... You know how you go into Outlook and to the inbox and you can see what's come in. You can see the sent items. If you go to the sent items—it's not complicated—and just search for Bill C-34, it organizes that way, and all the Bill C-34 emails come up for that time. You can actually see them.

Apparently, that's a difficult thing for the Department of Innovation and Industry to do. There must be too much science in it for them to do that and to then open it up and print it. Apparently that's going to take 2,960 days. I venture to say that by the time they get all that done, many of us will be off to other jobs and other lives, and maybe not even on this earth, but it takes the department that long.

Well, well—look at this: There's another one here. The respect that the industry department has for freedom of information and transparency, for ensuring that Canadians get to see open and transparent government, the most transparent government and the sunny ways Trudeau promised in 2015....

It says here that in asking for emails and text messages with regard to CPC-1.... CPC-1 was an important amendment that got through.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a clarification question. If Bill C-34 is in the Senate, is there any particular Senate group holding it up?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I just want to be clear. Do we know where Bill C-34 is in the Senate? Will it get...? I guess we really won't know, over the next couple of days, whether it will get finished and out of the Senate. It would take care of that, but in the meantime it's still not in law.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I think the motion is reasonable. In light of the previous studies we've done, it's important that this committee be able to weigh in on this kind of issue and ask for some form of accountability from the minister.

Would Bill C‑34 make it possible to go further than the current legislation? However, it hasn't yet completed the legislative process in the Senate. In the meantime, I think committee members have a duty to make this request, if only to send a message to the minister that we're still concerned about the acquisition of companies. This shows the hegemony of China, which owns more rare resources, rare earths and lithium around the world.

So I would be in favour of adopting this motion. If that's not possible, it will be declared null and void. At least the committee members will have sent a message to the minister so he knows that we want this work to be done through the Investment Canada Act.

Natural Resources

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, our government will always stand up for Canadian workers in Canadian industries.

Our government has been clear from day one that we will always welcome foreign investment and trade that encourage economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada. We know that economic security is national security. Bill C-34 would implement the ICA and bring forward improvements so our government can act more quickly when required.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in this most honourable House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East. It is great to see everyone this afternoon. I hope that all my colleagues and their families are doing well on this Tuesday.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate. Rather than indulge in Conservative partisan attacks on the pollution price, let us talk about what matters most to Canadians: making life more affordable and ensuring that Canadian families have good jobs and good futures for themselves and their children. That has been the focus of our government since day one and we will continue to be on that tangent.

As Canadians continue to feel the effects of global inflation, our government understands that it remains difficult for too many families to make ends meet.

We are seeing very strong indications that global inflation is rolling over. We have seen that in Europe where inflation is at 1.8% or so. We have seen that in the United States where some indicators have it down below 3%. We have seen rent inflation in the United States actually roll over to the downside. We have seen that in recent indicators in Canada. I strongly believe, as an economist and someone who worked on Bay Street and Wall Street for many years, although I grew up in small-town Canada, we will see that in the months ahead in Canada. When we look at the price of containers or look at leading indicators of the TRI index and so forth, inflation is rolling over to the downside. That is the way our economy is going. It will be a benefit to all Canadians.

Since 2015, our government has taken many actions to make life more affordable for Canadians who need it most, but we understand that some Canadians still need more support.

That is why, last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced new measures to support Canadians in the 2023 fall economic statement.

Of course, we are undertaking this while continuing to deliver the government's economic plan, and while also making important progress on the government's existing commitments that are helping to make life more affordable across the country.

It is clear that our measures are having a very real impact on Canadians' budgets.

I would like to give a few concrete examples.

A family with two children in British Columbia, with an income of $88,000 in 2023, could benefit from about $17,700 as a result of reduced child care costs, the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit and tax relief from the increased basic personal amount, which we raised to $15,000 in 2023-24. That will provide Canadians $6 billion of tax relief from coast to coast to coast. This is money in the pockets of Canadians.

For my family, my little daughter is at day care. The families that use that day care in the province of Ontario have saved 50%, which literally means up to $8,000 in after-tax dollars, while before-tax dollars it is over $10,000. Going into 2024, they are going to see a further reduction in their day care costs, which means real savings for families across Canada. That, again, will make life more affordable for all Canadians.

In Nova Scotia, low-income students could receive more than $5,800 in additional support in 2023, thanks to increased Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans, the grocery rebate and pollution price rebates, known as the climate action incentive payments.

If students have a disability or dependants, they could receive an additional $12,800 in specialized student grants, plus an extra $640 per dependant and up to $20,000 toward devices that support their learning. After graduating, all their federal student loans will remain interest free. Again, student loans to youth or older folks going to school are interest free, with full repayment assistance available until their income surpasses $40,000 per year.

A 78-year-old senior in Quebec with a maximum GIS entitlement could receive more than $2,000 in additional support in 2023. That is $2,000 in seniors' pockets thanks to the grocery rebate, the GIS top-up increase for single seniors, and the 10% old age security increase for people 75 and up.

However, we know that more needs to be done to support Canadians, especially through these times when global inflation has had an impact on all economies throughout the world. That is why our government has taken further action in the 2023 fall economic statement to support the middle class and build more homes faster.

To help Canadians with mortgages, our government is moving forward with the new Canadian mortgage charter, which details the relief Canadians can expect from their banks if they are in financial difficulty.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, there is an important issue on the supply side. There is simply not enough homes for Canadians. We have known this for years. We know that we need to increase the supply of homes. We have no choice; we need to do it. There are many reasons for this. We are attracting newcomers from all over the world, whether it is in the global high-tech stream, family reunification, express entry or firms putting forward LMIAs.

We are a magnet for talent from all over the world wanting to come to live, work and invest in Canada, which is a foreign concept for the official opposition. Foreign companies wishing to invest in Canada is a great thing. We need to champion it. Literally millions of Canadians work for foreign companies that have invested in Canada, and I cannot believe the official opposition does not like that.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, we need more supply. That is why we are accelerating our work to build more homes faster. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week in the 2023 fall economic statement that we would introduce billions of dollars in new financing to build more homes faster.

To make housing in this country more affordable, we will put forward measures to crack down on short-term rentals. We really want homes to be used for Canadians to live in. We will also take steps to increase the number of construction workers from coast to coast to coast.

I have been talking about housing measures, but cost of living challenges also include basic needs, such as groceries. Obviously, we see that as a major problem, so we are putting forward concrete measures to tackle it.

For example, we are going to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure Canadians have more choice, through competition, in where they take their business. The Competition Tribunal is something I hold dearly. We need to modernize it, and we are. We have done this with Bill C-34 and with other bills, as well as measures in Bill C-56. We need to move forward on that.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but capitalism only exists when there are rules and regulation and competition is encouraged, which fosters innovation, choice and lower prices. The more competition we have, the better our economy functions and better jobs happen. I am a big believer in new processes and new industries being created, and that is what is happening in Canada, whether it is in artificial intelligence, fintech or the many sectors across our beautiful country.

Together with Bill C-56, we will strengthen the tools and powers available to the Competition Bureau to enable it to crack down on abuses of dominance by bigger companies, including those intended to keep out competition, such as predatory pricing. Companies should pay for predatory pricing.

We will further modernize merger reviews, including by empowering the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. This is very important. Canadians deserve better, always—

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:25 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑34.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the third time and passed.