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.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm listening to them. It's important to do so.

As you know, however, there are quite a few priorities to deal with at the same time. For example, you've just mentioned bills C‑27 and C‑34.

It is of course important to reform the Copyright Act. I'm working on that with my colleague, heritage minister Rodriguez. I listened to what the industry had to say. I also heard from the universities.

It's definitely one of our priorities. We're going to continue to work with the industry. I have a great deal of respect for creators. They make an important contribution. We need to be there for them and we are going to continue to do just that.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to join debates in the House of Commons. Here we are today. It is a Bloc opposition day, which is a day when the Bloc can choose anything it would like to put into a motion, and it is a bit of an unusual one today. The Bloc has chosen to spend our day and have a recorded vote on this motion, which purports to simply remind the federal government about the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Before I get too deep into this, I want to point out that it is my plan to share my time, so I want to make sure that we are clear about that.

The only way that one could really explain this debate to their constituents, or that I could explain it to my constituents, is that the Prime Minister thrives on dividing Canadians. The Prime Minister is always looking for different ways to divide Canadians. One of the tactics that the Prime Minister uses is to invent phony issues or phony responses to issues in order to divide political opposition. In this case, he has created a phony constitutional crisis over the use of the notwithstanding clause, and the Bloc has taken the bait; it has taken it hook, line and sinker.

The Prime Minister has divided Canadians throughout his tenure, east against west, Quebec against Alberta, Quebeckers against themselves, and all manner of Canadians over many different issues. The Liberals try to slice up and dice Canadians in enough different ways to squeak through and try to win elections with minimal support. That is something the Prime Minister has succeeded in doing.

However, now, instead of using a fairly precious opposition day to hold the government to account for its incredible, in fact spectacular, failures, the Bloc is burning an opposition day by falling right into one of the Prime Minister's traps. The person happiest to be having this debate today is the Prime Minister. While the House is rehashing decades-old long discussion points about the Constitution and reliving the now 40-year history of the charter and the notwithstanding clause, the Prime Minister is avoiding a debate about how his government has made life unaffordable for millions of Canadians.

We are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Inflation is at a 40-year high. People cannot afford groceries. People cannot afford to heat their homes. There are people in remote communities across Canada, including Quebec, who rely on heating oil to keep from freezing in the winter. Some of these remote residents are among the poorest people in Canada and they cannot afford to pay $1,000 or more per month for home heating fuel, but they cannot live in homes without heat in winter.

While we are debating this motion, the Prime Minister is avoiding accountability for how he has deliberately made life unaffordable for Canadians with his punitive taxes, in particular the carbon tax. Therefore, although it is always a pleasure to engage in debate in the House, I wish that on an opposition day we could spend the day talking about the failures of the current government, instead of giving the government a day off.

It is not quite that bad. I guess it must be conceded that, while we are talking about this motion, the government is not moving its own motions. We are at least going a day when the government does not get any closer to passing terrible bills, like, say, Bill C-11, wherein the government seeks to give itself unprecedented control over what Canadians, including Quebeckers, see, post or find on the Internet. In fact, it is a bit of a bizarre one, in that the Bloc has signalled that it will ultimately help the government pass Bill C-11 and give a federal agency the power to regulate what Quebeckers see and find and post on the Internet. It is a strange one, but at least while we are talking about this motion today, that bill is not advancing.

Under the current government, life is increasingly unaffordable for Canadians. Rents have doubled across Canada's 10 largest cities, interest rates are at a 23-year high and consumer debt is at record highs. Nearly half the people who have variable rate mortgages in Canada say they are going to need to sell or walk away from their homes this year because they cannot afford the payments on the homes they already own. There is nothing happening in this debate today that is going to help any of these Canadians struggling with affordability.

We are playing the Liberals' game today. We are avoiding these issues through the motion before us and engaging in this manufactured constitutional crisis while the Prime Minister dodges these questions about affordability. He is also dodging questions about the ethics of the government and himself, and about the steady stream of ministers who have broken the law, including himself.

Today, while we relive old debates about this issue, the Prime Minister is avoiding accountability for the repeated violations by himself and government members throughout their tenure, their eight years in office, and also the way they hand out billions of dollars in lucrative consulting contracts to their well-connected friends.

While this debate rages, no further progress is made in dealing with any of these issues or in the crisis of public safety that has emerged under the government. Violent crime is up 32%, gang homicide is up over 90%, property crime is up and fraud is up.

Intellectual property theft is an issue too. We see this in the failures of Bill C-34, which we debated yesterday and which is failing to protect Canadians from the effects of foreign investment by state-owned enterprises. Canada also remains a prime destination for international money laundering. These are real issues that impact Canadians in their neighbourhoods, and this is exactly the kind of debate we should be having.

The debate today, where this is avoided, is the kind of debate the Prime Minister wants. The Prime Minister wants a debate where he can avoid talking about how life has become unaffordable under the government and where he avoids accountability for his failure to deliver public services like the ability for the government to issue a passport and the ability of the government to process immigration applications, or any immigration services. Under the government, there is an immigration-file backlog of 2.5 million people.

The government is delighted to be talking about anything other than the colossal failures that have taken place under its watch. Its members are avoiding talking about the crisis of public finance that is brewing under the government, the spike in interest rates that is going to increasingly impair the government's ability to deliver basic services without cutting services or raising taxes as debt service costs continue to eat more and more of the federal budget.

This motion today is a lost opportunity to compel the government to be better. Oppositions should be about demanding better from the government through the process of debate to ensure the best ideas go forward, and challenging the government and identifying mistakes the government has made so it can correct them. That is how we serve our constituents. That is how we help ensure we have accountability from our governments and how we improve the services to Canadians.

I will end it there and let members ask questions, if they have any.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share that acknowledgement with my colleague from Jonquière. We have raised the issue several times since that transaction, initially in private with the minister responsible.

Notwithstanding the harmful effects of the transaction, if this had been an oil company, it would only have taken two shakes of a lamb's tail for Canada to stand up, invoke national security and block the transaction. In this case, however, it is only wood, it is only the forest, and it is only in Quebec, so they do not care.

If Bill C‑34 is any good, then it should cover the transaction that is shielding Sinar Mas and forced Uighur labour.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.

One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.

There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.

There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?

There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.

There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.

Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.

There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.

There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.

Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.

Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.

We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.

That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.

Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.

It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.

Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.

Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.

As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.

Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?

The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.

Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.

It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.

This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.

It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.

Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.

This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.

Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.

Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.

In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start off by saying that I will be sharing my time.

I am pleased to appear before us today to speak in favour of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, and in particular, the context that led us to undertake these amendments.

Canadians know that our government will always act quickly and decisively to respond to threats to our national security. They also know that a nuanced approach is necessary to ensure that we do not impede the flow of capital that is so important to our continued prosperity.

Indeed, Canada remains a destination of choice for foreign investment. This investment helps businesses prosper and grow, creates well-paying jobs and ensures strong economic growth that benefits all Canadians. Canada has a long-standing reputation for welcoming foreign investment and a strong framework to promote trade while advancing Canadian interests. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for FDI.

The Investment Canada Act was enacted 38 years ago in 1985. The act allowed the government to review foreign investments to ensure that these benefits exist, and it was updated in 2009 to include a framework for a national security review of foreign direct investments.

The world in which Canada now operates is increasingly characterized by the complexity of linkages between economic competition and geostrategic clashes. Globalization has brought new threats to Canada's national and economic security. By exploiting access routes to the Canadian economy through investment, potentially hostile foreign actors can appropriate technologies, data and infrastructure, which are critical to Canada's national security. We also know that some foreign states seek to inhibit Canada's economic growth and to exercise economic coercion against Canada.

Such activities pose a threat not only to Canada's national security but also to its long-term economic prosperity. Canada must have the tools and resources to protect its assets from economic threats to national security. The Investment Canada Act must therefore also continually adapt to these considerations. The complexity of these dynamics can be seen in the increased volume of activity under the act in recent years.

Indeed, there have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in an entire previous decade. The review process is also increasingly complex, as international transactions and ownership structures are also becoming more complicated. The proposed modernization of the Investment Canada Act is designed to make this review process more efficient and more transparent.

Economic-based threats to national security are an area of increasing concern not just for Canada but for our allies as well. Other international jurisdictions are moving in response to shifting geopolitical threats, either by amending or putting in place investment screening regimes. Our action is needed to bring Canada into greater alignment with our international partners and allies.

We will recall that the Investment Canada Act played an important role in Canada's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As early as March 2022, we issued a policy statement that any investment controlled or influenced by the Russian state will also support a determination by the minister that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such an investment could be injurious to Canada's national security, regardless of its value.

This statement sends a clear message about our commitment to protecting Canada's economic security from unwanted investment. Moreover, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy is clear that this region will play a critical role in Canada's future over the next half century.

The significant opportunities for economic growth in this region are also accompanied by challenges related to the objectives of certain world powers that do not share our democratic and liberal principles. We must respond to this reality in a number of ways, including in the way foreign investment is assessed.

In short, the Investment Canada Act plays a key role in protecting Canada's economic interests from hostile foreign actors. It is broad in scope and allows Canada to respond to changing threats that may arise from foreign investment while protecting Canada's openness to beneficial international investment.

The package of amendments proposed in this bill is designed to assure businesses and investors that Canada has a clear and predictable regulatory regime. Today, we are taking bold steps to modernize key aspects of the Investment Canada Act to ensure that our review regime continues to be effective, rigorous, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world.

I thank—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point, which I did touch on, but it bears repeating. The government failed to use the existing tools under this act in the past, so here we are, debating the creation of new tools and stronger tools with a government that would not use the tools that already existed. Its credibility on this issue is a problem, and we need to get really serious about this, not just through new laws but also through implementation of laws, both existing and new, as contemplated in Bill C-34.

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

Madam Speaker, I found my Conservative colleague's speech very enlightening. I find it interesting that he pointed out that there have been cases in the past, which were investigated after the fact, where there was an obligation to conduct a national security review. The government does not seem to have done the work it was required to do and analyze whether the investment was a good idea or not.

The bill under consideration, Bill C‑34, is intended to provide a bit more authority. At the end of the day, if the requirement is the same, if the government is not doing its job any more than it is now, does my colleague think that anything will change?

I find it peculiar because he talked about a case. In my riding, there was a case where there was also an obligation to review. Thanks to an access to information request, it was discovered that there had been no review. It seems that the government is systematically delinquent when it comes to its own obligations. How does that happen?

Does that not worry my colleague?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Abbotsford.

Conservatives have been calling for changes to this act for years. For nearly eight years, the government has ignored the growing role of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises in Canada’s economy. For nearly eight years, the government has failed to take seriously the threat posed by the government of Beijing.

For nearly eight years, the government has sat back passively while Beijing has used ostensibly private corporations as proxies to project its government's power and influence into the Canadian economy. After eight years, the government has finally tabled legislation to strengthen the Investment Canada Act, which is a good thing, but it is something that should have been done years ago.

To assess the government's credibility on the issue, it is important that we examine its track record on protecting Canadians from investment by authoritarian regimes in the Canadian economy. This is a government that, in 2017, failed to conduct a national security review when Beijing-owned Hytera Communications bought Norsat.

The former minister Navdeep Bains and the Prime Minister falsely claimed that a review was done, obfuscating the mandatory 45-day waiting period for approval with an actual, fulsome national security review as defined in the existing act. Even Tom Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, criticized the government for rubber stamping the Hytera deal.

This takeover had serious consequences for Canada’s credibility with our allies. Norsat was an American defence contractor, and Canada allowed this takeover without a proper security review. Such a review was an option, and is an option, for the government under the existing Investment Canada Act, and that option was not undertaken on the Hytera deal.

Since then, Hytera has been banned from doing business in the United States and faces 21 espionage charges. This is the company that the government let into Canada without a national security review on the Norsat deal. The same company then received a contract to supply radio communications work to the RCMP. The same company had a contract with the Canada Border Services Agency for X-ray equipment.

This is the same government that also failed to stop Anbang from buying a chain of seniors homes, as we heard earlier from the NDP. Anbang also bought other buildings, which raised concerns not only about the substandard care that subsequently occurred in the seniors homes it took over, but also about corporate espionage in other buildings that were part of that deal.

This is a government that contracted with a company, whose founder was connected to the very top echelons of the PRC, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 embassies. This is a government that took years to finally ban Huawei from being a supplier of infrastructure to Canada’s 5G network, despite the obvious national security concerns. This reluctance has compromised Canada’s credibility with our Five Eyes intelligence partners. The government’s current industry minister approved the Neo Lithium takeover without a national security review

The opposition has spent years raising important questions about cracks and loopholes in existing laws, while the government claimed that there was no need to change the law until now, and it falsely claimed that it was using the tools available to it to help keep Canadians safe. It did this with such arrogance. It claimed that the opposition was simply playing politics whenever we raised a question about national security.

This is what the Liberals do. They dig in, when they find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, then finally flip while ignoring their past intransigence. This sudden flip, like what we are seeing right now with Bill C-34, on the need to address investment by autocratic, state-owned enterprises, is just like last week’s flip on Bill C-21 when they attempted to ban hunting rifles and shotguns.

Did they admit that the opposition was right all along? No. Did they thank the opposition for raising a point that they made a mistake that needed to be fixed? Did they admit that they were misleading Canadians for months? Did they admit that they were falsely claiming that the opposition was lying about the consequences of their amendment? Did the Minister of Public Safety admit that he was wrong and that he had misled Canadians? Did he apologize for attacking the opposition's motives? No, of course not. That is not what they do.

What they do is attack the motives of those who criticize them. When it becomes absolutely clear, like it is on this issue today of investment by autocratic state-owned enterprises, they might backpedal, but they do not take responsibility. They do not apologize or admit they were wrong.

As the opposition, we are just doing our job when we raise questions about public policy concerns, identify mistakes the government has made and identify shortcomings in existing laws or potential consequences of new laws or policies. The opposition has an ancient and sacred obligation to force the government to try to be better, and I just wish that it would listen from time to time, especially when it comes to national security.

Liberals and Conservatives are probably not very far apart from each other on the role of government when it comes to national security. I would hope that we are not far apart. This is not an ideological difference. We all care about our national security. With that in mind, I have some suggestions and points for Parliament to consider and hopefully also for the government to consider.

The bill would give the minister significantly more power but not necessarily a pathway to the best decisions. One thing this bill would do is shift power from cabinet, from order in council, to direct ministerial decision-making. This may result in faster decision-making but not necessarily better decisions.

I am concerned that the lack of a clear, strong definition of a state-owned enterprise may harm foreign investment in Canada overall without protecting Canadians from hostile foreign governments. The Canadian economy relies on direct foreign investment, and the parliamentary secretary talked about that. We need foreign, private capital from reciprocating open economies, and we have to be careful about what signals the bill sends to global capital markets.

I am disappointed that the bill does not simply allow the government to ban governments of autocratic and hostile regimes, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea or the People's Republic of China, through a simple list. This might be the easiest way to deal with the small number of countries seeking to exert power and influence within the Canadian economy through state-owned enterprises.

I am concerned that the bill does not appear to capture transactions where, rather than shares, a Canadian company sells assets, such as mines, farms, intellectual property and data, to a foreign state-owned enterprise.

I am especially concerned that maintaining the existing $400-million threshold for a mandatory government approval of a foreign takeover leaves the door wide open for the growing concern of Beijing-affiliated entities buying up farms, fishing enterprises, wharves and airport cargo facilities. These enterprises may have diverse ownership, but in aggregate, they have the potential to distort markets for important commodities, such as food. If the buyer of a Canadian company is the Government of China, the threshold for a national security review should be zero dollars, and every transaction of the foreign enterprises owned by the state should be captured.

In short, I do agree that the bill is an attempt to address serious and important policy concerns, and I will support the motion that is before the House to send the bill to committee. My opposition colleagues and I are committed to working with other parliamentarians to make the bill better.

No party has a monopoly on good ideas. This is a great opportunity to show Canadians that parliamentarians can work together and that the result of Parliament's adversarial process is that the best ideas will prevail through debate. As we debate the bill and study it at committee, we can co-operate, get beyond past mistakes and get serious about protecting Canadians from property theft, espionage, intellectual property theft, market distortions and other harms that result when foreign governments that are hostile to Canada's way of life take advantage of our open society and open economy. We are talking about transactions that are not fuelled by the market but by the raw power of a state to exert its influence on the Canadian economy.

Therefore, I will vote for the bill, but it is weak and needs a lot of work.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat something I said during my remarks. Economic security is national security. The purpose of Bill C-34 and modernizing the ICA is to not only protect Canada's national security but to ensure that any foreign investments bring a net economic benefit into the country.

That answer with my previous answer, I hope, would satisfy the member.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-34, legislation that represents the most significant update to the Investment Canada Act since 2009. In those 15 years, thanks to Canadian hard work and ingenuity and, for the last seven and a half years, a government that has been willing to invest in our future, Canada has become increasingly attractive to foreign investors who want what Canada has to offer, be that clean technologies, critical minerals, batteries or our skilled workforce.

I have the great pleasure of serving as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. In this role, I have seen first-hand how Canadian innovators are getting attention from investors around the world.

I also have the great privilege of being the member of Parliament for Halifax, and in the riding of Halifax we are proud to claim Dalhousie University professor Jeff Dahn as one of our own. Dr. Dahn is one of the world's leading researchers on lithium ion batteries, whose work has received significant industry investment, including from Tesla.

Nova Scotia is also home to Novonix, known for producing the best and most accurate lithium ion battery testing technology in the world. I was present at the grand opening of its new facility in Dartmouth just last November, which was made possible with help from our government.

Another Nova Scotia example, CarbonCure Technologies, is the winner of the 2021 Carbon XPrize. CarbonCure has gained international attention for its technology, which introduces recycled CO2 into concrete to drastically reduce its carbon footprint and make the concrete substantially stronger. Canada has much to offer in today's world as we together tackle issues of global concern.

There is, of course, another important asset this country has going for it as we seek to position Canada as an investment destination. That is the tireless Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry himself, who has been remarkably prolific and successful in the last several years in bringing together foreign investment into Canada. That is because our government understands that attracting investment to Canada means creating jobs for Canadians and growing the Canadian economy.

At the same time, we recognize that the evolving national security landscape means that Canada's approach to foreign investment must also evolve. To be sure, Canada must remain an open economy, but we cannot ignore that we are increasingly being targeted by hostile actors. This threatens not just our national security, but also our prosperity, and we must always remember that economic security is national security.

Over the last number of years, we have already undertaken a number of measures to modernize the Investment Canada Act, or ICA, by updating our policies to improve transparency and provide certainty to investors. For example, in 2021, we updated guidelines on the national security review of foreign investments. In 2022, in response to the unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, we set out a new policy on the review of foreign investments from Russia. We also introduced a voluntary filing mechanism for investors seeking regulatory certainty, triggering the same legal deadlines as a mandatory filing. That means investors can gain certainty about their plans while the government gains valuable insights into those plans ourselves. This past fall, we introduced a policy regarding foreign investment from state-owned enterprises in critical minerals under the ICA.

Bill C-34 is the next step forward. This legislation would protect the Canadian marketplace by evolving our tools to better defend against current and future threats. By equipping ourselves today for tomorrow's threats, Canada will remain a destination of choice for foreign investment.

With that framing, I would now like to touch on the amendments to the ICA that we are proposing, which all together would improve Canada's visibility into proposed investments, enhance transparency and investor confidence, and further empower Canada to act decisively on potential threats to our national security. There are seven proposed amendments to the ICA contained in Bill C-34.

The first is the introduction of a pre-implementation filing requirement for specified investments. This means that Canada would have oversight of investments made in certain sensitive business sectors, allowing a review of these transactions to be undertaken to prevent potential harm to our national security. This is a targeted approach designed to reduce unnecessary burden while bolstering transparency and certainty for investors.

The second amendment would introduce a new ministerial authority to order further national security reviews of investments. This means that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry would have the ability to order further reviews more efficiently, whereas previously a Governor in Council order was required.

The third amendment in Bill C-34 would increase penalties to strengthen deterrence. This means that penalties for non-compliance, which have not been updated in several decades, would reflect current financial realities, while also providing the authority to update penalties again as needed in the future.

The fourth would be the new authority provided to the Minister of Innovation, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on parties to an investment. This means that during the review itself, we would better protect against national security threats that could come from the transfer of assets, IP or trade secrets.

The fifth amendment would provide the minister with the authority to accept mitigation undertakings. This means there would be more flexibility to improve or amend mitigation agreements at the ministerial level, where again, previously, the very rigid Governor in Council order was necessary to impose conditions on transactions to mitigate risks.

The sixth amendment in Bill C-34 would improve information sharing with international counterparts. We know that in the evolving geopolitical landscape that we inhabit, our co-operation with international allies is important for our collective security. This amendment would mean smoother consultations with our international partners and would allow Canada to share case-specific information, where appropriate, to support national security assessments.

The seventh and final amendment in the bill would bring new rules to protect information in the course of judicial review proceedings. This means sensitive information could be used in these proceedings while protecting it from disclosure, allowing judges to consider this information as part of their deliberations while allowing the applicants to fully participate in the judicial review.

Canada has a global reputation as a welcoming investment destination and ranks second among G20 countries in foreign investment. This is good news. In fact, last year we celebrated a new all-time high in the total number of filings. It is a job well done by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. As a result of this success, Canada’s foreign investment regime must adapt to the speed of innovation.

Under the leadership of the minister and this government, Canada’s evolving policies and guidance have been addressing these developments as they arise, and we have taken clear and decisive action on transactions whenever necessary to protect Canada’s national security, but more must be done to ensure our ability to move quickly and decisively in the future. The guidance and decisions issued over the past several years make clear that some transactions, particularly those by state-owned or state-influenced investors, may be motivated by non-commercial imperatives that could harm Canada’s national security.

Ultimately, the volume and complexity of foreign investment reviews is increasing and this significant change provides a strong rationale for supporting ICA modernization. The time now is right to pursue modernization of the Investment Canada Act through Bill C-34 before the House today. Fundamentally, our government believes that an effective review regime must be robust, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world. We are making important moves now to review and modernize key aspects of the act, while ensuring that the overarching framework to support needed foreign investment to grow our economy remains strong and open.

Our record as a government makes it abundantly clear that where national security is concerned, we will not shy away from decisive action, and our assessment of risk keeps pace with evolving economic and geopolitical circumstances. While the ICA gives us much of the authorities we need to intercede and address national security risks that can arise in foreign investment, these amendments build on that strong foundation and improve the mechanics of the national security review of investments.

Taken together, these legislative amendments would ensure Canada is able to continue to gain the economic benefits of investments while strengthening our ability to address threats to our country and its future prosperity. For these reasons, I hope all members of the House will vote in favour of Bill C-34.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Today, our government is proposing important amendments to modernize this legislation. We will never hesitate to act swiftly and decisively when there is a threat to our national security, and these amendments are at the heart of that effort.

The purpose of this bill is to modernize the Investment Canada Act. The proposed amendments will help make Canada more agile in addressing any threats that may arise from foreign investment, thereby maintaining Canada's position as a top destination for doing business.

Today I want to talk specifically about increasing foreign investment across the entire economy and in certain key sectors of Canada's economy over the past few years. More than ever, we know and recognize the importance of ensuring that we are doing everything we can to promote and foster a strong, innovative green economy. A clear and predictable regulatory regime in Canada is essential for businesses and investors.

As we know, Canada is one of the best places in the world to do business. Businesses that invest here benefit from favourable economic conditions, a stable political climate, safe infrastructure and an innovation-friendly environment. Canada's advantageous position makes companies that do business here more competitive and increases prosperity for all Canadians.

Over the past few years, more and more foreign investors have chosen Canada for its business-friendly environment. The flow of foreign direct investment in Canada has nearly doubled over the past five years.

I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague and esteemed friend from Halifax.

According to the United Nations, in 2021, Canada had the second-largest ratio of foreign direct investment stock to GDP among G20 countries. However, this increase in the volume of foreign investment also comes with certain risks. For example, the number of investments reviewed under the Investment Canada Act also doubled over the past five years. There are also more and more investments related to sensitive technologies, critical minerals and sensitive information.

It is also important to point out the recent increase in national security reviews under the Investment Canada Act. There have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in the previous 10 years. This upward trend is expected to continue, given that Canada is an attractive destination for foreign investors.

The reality is that today's geopolitical dynamic is evolving quickly. Hostile actors could seek to disrupt Canada's economic security through our open market economy. Threats to Canada are changing all the time, and the government must ensure that Canada's foreign investment review regime strikes a good balance between promoting foreign direct investment and protecting Canada's interests and security.

We are all proud that Canada is an open economy and a trading nation. Our country is one of the most attractive destinations for the foreign investments that are necessary to our economic prosperity. In order to ensure that Canada remains an attractive destination for foreign investment, we must have a clear and predictable regulatory regime. That is why this new bill, which modernizes Canada's foreign investment review regime by amending the Investment Canada Act, or ICA, is so important.

The amendments to the ICA will make the investment review process more effective and transparent, while ensuring that the interests and security of all Canadians are better protected. This new Bill C-34 represents the most significant update of the Investment Canada Act since 2009.

Together, these legislative amendments will help ensure that Canada is able to enjoy the economic benefits of foreign investments in all sectors, while strengthening its ability to act quickly and decisively to defend against threats to our national and economic security.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, has good intentions. It seeks to improve controls and give the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry more authority over foreign investments in Canada. The Bloc Québécois fully supports this commitment to better protecting the economy of Quebec and Canada from foreign interests that may be harmful to us.

The new review process is essentially the same as the one used in the United States. Adopting it increases the chances that the U.S. will continue to see us as a reliable partner. That is a condition for being a preferred supplier that is well integrated into their supply chains. At a time when protectionism is on the rise among our neighbours to the south, a trend that could seriously disrupt our economy, that is an important asset, and the Bloc Québécois applauds it.

Bill C‑34 is in addition to the new critical minerals guidelines that the government adopted in October 2022, and that apply to 31 minerals that are critical for the long-term economic prosperity of Canada and its allies. Bill C‑34 and Canada's new critical minerals strategy should help stop Chinese companies, among others, from taking over our resources.

All these developments are positive, but they are only half-measures. That is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in controlling foreign investments in general. The bill under consideration is limited to investments affecting national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, so focusing on it is justified. However, it represents only a small fraction of all foreign investments made in Canada. It is clear that the safety net provided for in the new system created by these proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act is inadequate.

Here are some figures. Of the 1,255 investment projects filed last year, under the new rules being proposed in Bill C‑34, only 24 would be subject to review. Clearly, this is like a grain of sand on a beach. This bill would affect only 2% of all investment projects filed last year. The other 1,221 projects from last year would remain subject to the new rules. Those rules provide for a review to determine whether a project will truly provide a net economic benefit to Canada.

There are six criteria then used to assess whether a transaction is beneficial. That said, I would draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that a review is only triggered when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères explained.

That is where the problem lies. Over the years, the threshold at which the government must assess whether an investment is economically beneficial has been significantly increased. It has more than tripled in the last 10 years. At the same time, the number of investment projects is increasing every year, and that must be taken into consideration.

The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review. Last year, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. That is less than 1%.

The member for Winnipeg North says that the law is being amended, so it must be good. The Liberals have created a bill that does not affect even 1% of the projects. That is not very ambitious. It reminds me of yesterday's smoke show on health transfers.

The review rate was 10% as recently as about 10 years ago, in 2009. In reality, this measure has become essentially ineffective over time. It might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. The situation is such that foreign investments are rubber-stamped without analysis, save for exceptional cases. Understandably, less than 1% certainly qualifies as exceptional.

Everyone knows how much I love history, how passionate I am about it, and I believe that building our future depends on having a good understanding of the past so we can learn from our successes and avoid repeating mistakes. I would like to share some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.

Since the Quiet Revolution, the Government of Quebec has established some important economic and financial levers. These tools enable it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism designed to give Quebeckers more control over their economy. That does not mean Quebec is not open to foreign investment. We are open to it because it can drive growth and development. However, we believe the priority is supporting our own businesses to help them grow so we can protect the significant decision-making power of our own corporate headquarters.

In 1988, former Parti Québécois premier Bernard Landry lobbied for the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, which was signed with the U.S. and Mexico in the early 1990s. Quebec's strategy worked. Quebec's decision to invest in its businesses paid off, and many flagship companies headquartered on Quebec soil grew.

As the figures show, the presence of head offices is important. There are currently close to 578 head offices in Quebec. This represents approximately 50,000 jobs that pay twice as much as the Quebec average. On top of that, head offices provide nearly 20,000 other jobs for specialized suppliers such as accounting, legal, financial and computer firms, and so on. Structurally, companies headquartered in Quebec also tend to favour procurement from local suppliers, which creates a positive economic circle. Finally, companies tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their head office is located.

As the Bloc Québécois science and innovation critic, I have to emphasize how important this characteristic is, since Canada ranks last in the G7 when it comes to corporate investments in research and development. This statistic can probably be traced to the fact that the Canadian economy has always been recognized as a subsidiary economy. One might think of the automotive sector, with Ford Canada and GM Canada, or the oil sector, with the Shell Canadas and the Imperial Oils of the world.

There is no shortage of examples of the harmful effects that ill-advised foreign investments can have on our economy and even our prosperity. Here are just a few.

First, there is the loss of decision-making powers and head offices, which condemns us to being a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Second, there is the weakening of Montreal's financial sector as a global finance hub. Third, there is the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers and supply chains that are more fragile than ever. We saw that during difficult times, such as the COVID‑19 pandemic. Fourth, there is the possible land grab by rich foreigners who do not care about our social and economic priorities. That is a concrete example. Fifth, there is the loss of control over our natural resources, which are our country's greatest asset.

By focusing exclusively on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. I want to reiterate that we invite the government to amend its bill to make it much more bold and ambitious and to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act and not just the part on national security.

As always, the Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such it is recommending three types of amendments. The first is to lower the review threshold to prevent most foreign investments from being approved without review. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents.

I hope the government will listen to our practical proposals and modernize this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech very interesting, particularly with regard to whether there are any documents to support the minister's decision on the acquisition laws.

In the last Parliament, recommendation number one of the unanimous report by the industry committee was that a state-owned enterprise's financial ceiling for review by the government be lowered from $415 million, from a hostile country like China, to zero. This bill, Bill C-34, does not propose any changes to that limit, which means that state-owned enterprises can buy up anything they like in this country under $415 million.

I would like the member's views on whether he would like to see amendments to this bill in that area.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is pretty much telling us that they are going to modernize Bill C-34, that it is a good thing and that we should be pleased.

I am pleased that Bill C‑34 will be updated somewhat; what is sad is that that requires rigour. The problem is that there is no rigour.

Is there a way to come up with a more rigorous bill, one that would require rigour? That is what I would find more interesting and make me happier.

Let us look at an example. In 2021-22, there were 1,255 notices of foreign investment. That is a lot. How many were examined? How many were reviewed?

Not even 1% of investments were reviewed. That is absolutely crazy, but that is what the government considers to be rigorous. It approves everything and has lost control.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

We are here today to talk about Bill C‑34. To date, there has been a great deal of discussion about national security, which is the main part of the bill. This bill seeks to reinforce the powers the minister has to take action to protect national security. This is not a bad thing; it is even a very good thing, but decidedly, it does not go far enough.

I also want to talk about one of my concerns relating to another aspect of the Investment Canada Act, which, unfortunately, the bill under consideration does not address.

In fact, there are a number of things in the Investment Canada Act. First, people abroad who want, for example, to purchase a company, invest in a mine, start a research firm or make any significant investment whatsoever have to fill out a form and give notice of their investment indicating their intention.

Then, the federal government must determine whether it wants to review the actual investment. It can review it based on national security criteria, which is what this bill is about. The bill seeks to give the minister more power and to tighten the review criteria.

The other review criterion has to do with the net benefit for Canada. That is something that is a little more vague and that is not very clearly defined. I would even go so far as to say that there is not much on the subject in the current act. That gives the minister a lot of latitude in determining what constitutes a net benefit for Canada. In some unforeseen circumstances, it might be good for the minister to have the latitude to use their judgment. However, it would be good to have a bit more accountability and proactivity on the part of the government with regard to the use of the act.

I would like to talk about where the review threshold was when I was first elected in 2015. I would note that the minister is not obligated to conduct a review. Reviews are mandatory only beyond a certain threshold. When I was elected in 2015, the review threshold was $369 million. What is it now? Better be sitting down for this. It has been indexed, but let us just say it is indexing on steroids. Today, in 2023, the threshold ranges from $1.3 billion to $1.9 billion. That means not all transactions go through a net benefit review if they are below that threshold.

The $1.3-billion threshold is for businesses with which Canada does not have a trade agreement, while the $1.9-billion threshold is for those with which it has agreements, such as the U.K., the U.S., the EU and so on.

This means that some Quebec companies are not protected by the current review threshold. These companies are very important to Quebec's economy, which is very different from Canada's economy. The Canadian economy relies heavily on subsidiaries of U.S. companies, but Quebec's economy is more about small and medium-sized businesses. Slowly but surely, some small businesses grow by dint of hard work and even end up getting listed on the stock exchange.

Some of these major Quebec corporations that are publicly traded and are not protected under the current review threshold include Héroux-Devtek, which has a market value of $560 million, Lassonde Industries, which has a market value of $805 million, Cascades, which has a market value of $909 million, TC Transcontinental, which has a market value of $1.3 billion, and Resolute Forest Products, which has a market value of $1.6 billion.

All of these companies could disappear overnight. Any big shot from the U.S. or any other country on the planet could come in and take them over. The minister would not even look at it. It would be rubber-stamped. Thank you, good night, goodbye to that company. These are major, strategic corporations in terms of Quebec's national interest, and the federal government will not even look at them. It could not be bothered to take the time to analyze the transaction. It is unbelievable.

Worse, in some situations, a review is conducted, but it is not always very rigorous. Let me give an example. My riding was home to a company called Rona. Everyone in Quebec knows Rona. It is a major hardware store that sells all the building materials used in homes. In 2016, the company was sold for $3.2 billion to the American company Lowe's, a company in the same sector.

What happened? A review was supposed to take place because, at that time, the threshold was set at $369 million and it was exceeded. However, immediately after the transaction, some potential wrongdoing came to light. The former board of directors was fired, as was its president, Robert Dutton. Complicit in this was the president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, who allegedly planned his exit in order to facilitate the sale of Rona, since it was blocked the first time around, in 2012. This former president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is now working for the Liberals. His name is Michael Sabia.

What is interesting is that when we learned about this, we immediately wrote to Minister Bains. We asked him to take a look at what was happening before authorizing the transaction. We just wanted to put it on hold to see if it was a good idea for Quebec or not. What happened? The minister rubber-stamped it. He did not ask any questions. Before we knew it, the company was gone. That is sad. The company was re-sold for $400 million U.S. when it was originally purchased for $3.2 billion. That loss of value signals an abysmal failure. It was sold for a pittance to another U.S. company after Lowe's fell flat on its face in Quebec.

Well, after the minister approved the transaction, we wondered why he made that decision and what his thought process was. There should have been a net benefit to Canada review. We submitted an ATIP request to see what documents and analyses helped the minister make his decision. The answer we got was surreal. Here is what it said: We carried out a comprehensive search and regret to inform you that we found no documents corresponding to your request.

There are no documents. The minister referred to zero documents and zero analyses to make his decision about net benefit to Canada. That is what passes for rigorous analysis by the Liberals for a company worth $3.2 billion, a massive company of strategic value to Quebec. What do people buy at hardware stores? They buy building materials. Building materials are made from raw materials. What do we produce here? We produce wood, nails, shovels and so on. The products that end up on the shelves in those stores are products we make in Quebec.

What happens when a foreign company buys that company? The foreign company has its own suppliers already. For example, an American company will use American suppliers because it already does business with them. Quebec suppliers get kicked to the curb. That is what happened, unfortunately. Many Quebec suppliers lost their orders.

Now Rona will have a second chance with its new owner. We hope things will improve, but it is sad. What happened was the Liberals could not be bothered to review the transaction to see whether it was beneficial or whether it was even over the threshold. That is a big problem. I find that really odd. When a company comes here from overseas and takes a heavy-handed approach, often our first instinct is to assume that they are much better than us, that they are much bigger and therefore unbeatable. We think we have no choice but to sell, so we immediately roll over.

Companies like Target come to mind. When Target came along, the owners of Zellers sold all their stores. It was a fire sale. Run for your lives. Target was going to come in and kill everyone. What happened to Target? It did not last a year before it shut down. Another example is Provigo. Provigo was a Quebec company, a large grocery store chain that created competition. Now we have Loblaws, which exists in the market and is up against Metro, but there used to be other players, too. Unfortunately, when Provigo disappeared, there was less competition, which resulted in higher prices in grocery stores. Today, there are no longer any Loblaws grocery stores in Quebec. Loblaws put the Provigo signs back up. They realized that the Loblaws stores were not working.

Just because a foreign company comes here does not mean that it will succeed. We too have good, solid companies. We should be proud of them. We should ask questions before rubber-stamping any old transaction. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not understand that. There was an opportunity with Bill C‑34 to do more to defend our companies, and it did not do so. I am really disappointed.