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.

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

I do want to thank Mr. Ste-Marie. I always appreciate his perspective and his viewpoints on the important issues that come before this committee.

One of the things that I think is also very important to do is that, if we're asked to vote on a motion about the Canada pension plan, we need to do a bit of a deep dive for Canadians on what exactly the Canada pension plan is.

With that, I thought I would talk a little bit about what it does. The Canada pension plan “mandates all employed Canadians who are 18 years of age and over to contribute a prescribed portion of their earnings income (with an equal matching amount contributed by their employers) to a federally administered pension plan. The plan is administered by Employment and Social Development Canada on behalf of employees in all provinces and territories except Quebec, which operates an equivalent plan”.

We have talked about that. It's actually in the motion, in point 2. I'll just maybe revisit that so that we can confirm that.

Point 2 does say that it “Recognizes the important contribution of the Quebec Pension Plan which was established independently at the same time as the Canada Pension Plan”. That's why the plan is administered by Employment and Social Development Canada on behalf of all the provinces except for Quebec, because Quebec has its own plan, the Quebec pension plan.

This says, “Because the Constitutional authority for pensions is shared between the provincial and federal governments, stewardship for the CPP is jointly shared. As a result, major changes to the CPP (including those that alter how benefits are calculated) require the approval of at least seven Canadian provinces representing at least two-thirds of the country's population.”

That is very interesting, Mr. Chair. I don't think I realized that before.

That's really important because we're all in this together. This Canada pension plan is so important that the great minds who thought about it, who conceived of the legislation to create and give life to the Canada pension plan, decided that it should not be subject to being changed unilaterally by, for example, a single minister, like we saw, for example, in Bill C-34.

Bill C-34 gives the minister alone the authority to approve a foreign investment without the need for cabinet oversight. I have to say that, certainly, with regard to the people who drafted the CPP legislation, this provision tells me that they had wisdom. They understood that this was too big, that it would be too much power to place in the hands of any one person.

What did they do? They said that any major changes to the CPP, including those that alter how benefits are calculated, require the approval of at least seven Canadian provinces representing at least two-thirds of the country's population. That is a very high bar.

Let's see. There are about 40 million people here. Two-thirds of that is roughly about 28 million or 29 million. What is two-thirds of 40 million? It's about 25 million. I know the math is hard, but it's about 26 million or 27 million people who you would need. That's a very high bar, across seven provinces. That's a very important provision of the Canada pension plan.

I'll continue: “Provinces may choose to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan; as Quebec did in 1965, but must offer a comparable plan to its residents. Any province may establish an additional/supplementary plan anytime as under section 94A of the Canadian Constitution, pensions are a provincial responsibility.

“The CPP Fund is a professionally managed investment fund and it is overseen by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), an independent organization that reports to the federal and provincial governments. The CPPIB's investment strategy is guided by a set of principles that emphasize long-term benefits security, a focus on quality, and a commitment to sustainability and responsible investment practices. The CPPIB also regularly reports on its investment performance and activities, and is subject to oversight by the federal and provincial governments.”

As I said a little earlier, Mr. Chair, I am getting over a bit of a cold, and I'm finding it a little difficult to talk without coughing. I have to have some respect for the translators. I worry about the translators.

Hello over there. How are you? They're waving back.

Thank you very much. I want you to know that I don't want to offend your ears because of my raspy cough, so I am going to take a bit of a break to rest up.

My colleagues who can speak more clearly will take up the microphone and I will relinquish the mike.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of conversations this morning about the selling out of Canada by past governments, not only by the Harper government but also by the Mulroney government before that, and the signing of the disastrous Canada-China FIPA, where both Conservatives and Liberals, in an interesting coalition, I might add, voted on that.

I will give credit to the Liberal government for trying to fix its mistakes in Bill C-34. I appreciate that. However, I am confused and would love to hear the hon. member's comments. Even though the Conservatives have now recognized some mistakes and are trying to fix them, and they agree with the bill, why are they working so hard to delay the passage of it?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I chuckled when the hon. member mentioned middle-class Canadians, or those aspiring to be. It is funny how, after eight years, middle-class Canadians are now just trying to stay in the middle class as a result of all the policies of the government, with the affordability and inflation crisis caused by overspending and the debt that has accumulated.

I want to speak specifically about Bill C-34 and the mandatory notice regime. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty within industry right now as it relates to the applications that are in the process, in some cases by minority investors. As for the definition of the mandatory notice regime, and specifically what categories of investment would fall into that, there seems to be a little uncertainty. I wonder if the hon. member can tell us what that would be.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not that up on technology and social media to be able to talk about chatbots.

The point is, as other members have made reference to, that things have changed considerably, and one of those things is dealing with technology and amplifying the issue of AI.

It is interesting when I listen to the Conservatives, and their critic in particular. They have so many reservations about seeing this legislation ultimately pass. We saw that in their statements today and in the questions they are posing. Earlier today, one of the Conservative members stood in her place and talked about how bad the Government of Canada, that we kind of sneak around to do things, and then asked why we would want a minister to be responsible. I asked the member to reflect on an incident that occurred a number of years ago.

When Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, he ventured over to China and I believe brought back a commitment to bring panda bears over from China. What was not well advertised was that he put in place an investment protection agreement. The other day I made reference to it as a free trade type of agreement. The member for Abbotsford stood in his place and demanded that it was not a free trade agreement, but rather it was an investment protection agreement.

We can play with words all we want, but the bottom line is that agreement was done in complete secrecy. Therefore, when Conservatives stand up and talk about how we are going to give all this power to the minister, I think they should reflect on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the manner in which he put into place a substantive agreement known as an investment protection agreement between Canada and China.

If we contrast that to many of the things the Conservatives are saying during the debate on Bill C-34, I think they would be a bit surprised with what would have happened had they had the same principles they have today back when that agreement was signed with China, because we know what their attitude toward China is today.

I say that because, when I think of the legislation, I believe that having the authority lie with the minister, who has an obligation to consult with the public safety minister, which is often not mentioned, adds a great deal of strength to the legislation. Ultimately, there is accountability for the minister that takes place in different forums, whether it is through question period, orders for return, the minister going to committee or in the form of written letters. Today there are many types of mainstream media outlets that members can go to, as well as social media. There are many different ways in which the opposition is able to track, oppose and raise the level of public debate on issues.

Therefore, I do not share the concerns that members across the way have with this legislation now giving more authority to the minister. The minister can now request a further national security review.

We need to recognize that the primary purpose of this legislation is to protect Canada's best interests on the issue of foreign investment. It is interesting. We have heard in the chamber a great deal about foreign interference. We have had committees study it. We have had a public inquiry of sorts looking into the issue of foreign interference.

Investment is another way in which countries can, in fact, cause issues related to foreign interference concerns. I would have thought that would have elevated the need to see this type of legislation not only being talked about, but also passed.

The New Democratic critic was talking about amendments, as was the Conservative critic. They were talking about the amendments that were not passed. There are two issues that I would highlight, which the members did not reference.

One issue is that, in approaching the committee, the government was very open to improving the legislation through amendments, if the amendments could improve the strength of the legislation. What we saw, as we often see, at least in this government, was a willingness and an openness not only to listen to potential amendments, but also where it makes sense and adds true value in terms of the strength and scope of the legislation, to see the amendments pass. We saw that at the committee stage. We saw significant amendments proposed and passed. Not all amendments passed. A member referenced one of the amendments that he was concerned about, but then he was assured that the minister already would have the authority to be able to do it, and the amendment was not approved.

The point is that today the legislation is even stronger than it was prior to going to committee. That is why we, including me, pushed very heavily to get Bill C-34 out of second reading so that we could get it to committee stage and look at potential amendments.

Members can correct me if I am wrong, but at the end of the day, I believe that the legislation is going to be receiving all-party support. I am not too sure about the Green members, but I do believe it will be receiving substantial support.

I know there are other pieces of legislation that the opposition has concerns about. The Ukraine trade agreement is one of them. Much to my surprise and the surprise of many, it would appear that the Conservative Party might not be supporting that particular agreement. It is important. It is an important part of foreign investment, and let me tell members why.

At the very beginning, back in 2015, when we took office, we made it very clear that as a government we wanted to be there to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. I suspect that if members were to do a search in Hansard, they would find that I have re-emphasized that on many occasions. That is the type of action and the type of budgetary and legislative measures that we have put into place to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, not to mention the many other policies to assist in lifting other individuals, including seniors and children, out of poverty.

A big part of that is to recognize that Canada is a trading nation. When I say it is a trading nation, we can look at the number of agreements that were signed off by this government. Never in history has a government signed off on as many trade agreements as this Prime Minister has. That is a clear fact.

No doubt there was some preparatory work done under the previous administration, but the signing off and the finalizing of those agreements were done under this administration. Trade is important to our communities in all regions of our country.

I have referred to HyLife, as an example, in the community of Neepawa, Manitoba. At HyLife, they process literally hundreds, if not thousands, of pigs every month, and likely thousands of pigs are processed every day in Neepawa. Think about the jobs created as a direct result, whether in the farming community or on the factory floor. Colleagues may be surprised to know that the last time I had a tour of the facility, 98% of what was coming off the floor was being exported to Asia.

That particular firm is not alone. I think it amplifies how important trade is and the opportunities that trade provides. Think about investments. Having those trade agreements encourages more investment, foreign investment. When people look at those direct jobs I referred to, they should think about the indirect jobs that are a direct result of those. Farming and working in factories, and every job in between, could be classified as direct jobs. Indirect jobs would be selling cars, and making restaurants, houses and appliances. Those are all indirect jobs because of the economics of having that particular processing facility, all of which demonstrates why trade is so important.

Let us compare Canada to any other country in the world, including the U.S.A., and it has trade agreements that expand the world. As a result, as part of having those special relationships with countries around the world, it sends another message that Canada is not only a good country to trade with but also a good country to invest in. I believe, if we apply that perspective to the advancements we have seen in small businesses in every region of our country, whether small, medium or big, we should all be concerned about how money is flowing into the country and being invested in companies that are already up and running. As I indicated, if we think back to foreign investments in 2009-10, the world was very different, with respect to technology and AI.

There are so many other factors at play. That is why it is important that we bring forward Bill C-34. By doing that, we are ensuring Canadian interests are, in fact, protected. An ideal example of that would be any foreign company investing in a company in Canada for the purpose of taking it over and then potentially shutting it down, or taking the technological advances or AI development within it and taking it out of the country, thereby limiting potential growth in that area, especially in areas of expertise.

My friend from the Bloc referred to the industries in the province of Quebec. In the preamble of my question to him, I pointed out that there are a lot of similarities between Quebec and Manitoba. Manitoba's aerospace industry is very important. The other day, I met with someone at StandardAero, and we talked about the importance of the aerospace industry and engines. That company has been in Manitoba for over 100 years.

There are all sorts of things that take place in our specialized industries, whether it is aerospace or hydro, again, something we have in common with the province of Quebec. There are certain sectors throughout the country in which I suggest we are on the leading edge, and we need to be very cognizant that some outside characters might not necessarily be acting in good faith when they say they want to acquire company X. That is why it is important that this legislation passes. It is important that the minister has the ability to make those decisions and to work with the Minister of Public Safety.

There are many other ways to ensure there is public awareness and a high sense of accountability, which I alluded to earlier. It is why I am hoping the Conservatives, the opposition, will recognize the value of the legislation. It is now at third reading. It is in a great position to pass and, hopefully, time allocation will not be required.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the last minute or so, I have been sitting in my chair contemplating a private member's resolution perhaps in the future to talk about blueberries. The member from B.C. was talking about the blueberries from B.C. My colleague from Fredericton was talking about the lovely blueberries in communities around Fredericton, and there are blueberries in the province of Nova Scotia. I can attest there are blueberries growing even in the province of Manitoba. From coast to coast to coast, and I believe even in Yukon, we can get blueberries, but do not quote me on that.

What we could all agree on is that blueberries are very healthy. We know that for a fact. It is a nutritional powerhouse for one's diet, so we should all be eating blueberries, no matter where they come from. I will wait for the private member's motion at some point in the future to add to those thoughts.

Having said that, I am grateful that today we are debating Bill C-34 and that the Conservative Party did not move a motion for concurrence. That means we actually get to debate the legislation that was intended to be debated. That is how I would start off in terms of good news, in recognizing that the Conservatives have provided us the opportunity to debate the bill. However, members will recall that we did have to bring in time allocation in order to get the bill to the committee, in order to ultimately get it to third reading.

I am going to continue to be a little optimistic. I have listened to the speeches on all sides of the House, and there are a couple of thoughts that come to my mind.

First, members seem to recognize that it is important that we modernize and update the legislation and justifiably so. Over the last decade-plus, which is the last time we actually saw any form of substantial change to the legislation, a lot has changed.

In the question I posed to the previous speaker, I talked about AI. It is incredible the degree to which AI has grown in the last number of years. It was not that long ago when someone sitting beside me in the chamber said, “Pick a topic, Kevin.” I think I can say my first name, Mr. Speaker. I picked a topic and used the example of the Philippines. Moments later a speech that I would apparently be comfortable saying appeared right there, in one minute. It was a detailed speech talking about the Philippines—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure they were blueberries from British Columbia. They are bigger and better.

I mentioned in my speech the fact of two very significant takeovers that happened during the Harper era. One was from, basically, the Chinese government, in our oil patch; the other was from Petronas, the Malaysian oil and gas company.

Canada has, since its inception, relied on its natural resources to be the basis of our wealth. This is basically our birthright. It is what we have to really develop the Canadian economy. Therefore, I think we have to be very careful about any takeovers by companies that give foreign companies and, especially, foreign governments control over our natural resources, especially one as important as oil and gas.

I think it is ironic, as I mentioned in my speech, that the Harper government banned the sale of oil and gas companies to foreign entities as soon as they approved those two acquisitions.

I think it is certainly something that we have to really be careful of in the future. Hopefully, these incremental changes in Bill C-34 will help us do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise here today once again to speak to Bill C-34, which would update the Investment Canada Act. I spoke to this bill on Monday. It is now Thursday and not much has happened in the interim. We did consider a report stage amendment and voted on it, an amendment that would have taken some of the powers vested in the minister in this new act and moved them to cabinet. That amendment was defeated, so we are basically back to where we were when it came out of committee at report stage. I will therefore be repeating some of my comments from Monday, naturally.

This act is designed to do two main things. It is designed to ensure that foreign investments in Canada have a net benefit for Canadians and that foreign investments are not detrimental to our national security.

As I said previously, many Canadians will know this act from its first iteration, back in the seventies, as the Foreign Investment Review Act. It was brought in at that time because there was a rash of foreign takeovers, predominantly American takeovers, of Canadian companies. American companies were moving in as the economy was booming in the fifties and sixties. There was money for these companies to expand. They moved north and started to buy up Canadian companies. I remember that at that time, to go way back, there was real concern in Canada about this trend of foreign companies taking over Canadian companies, sometimes moving their operations entirely out of the country, sometimes just keeping them as branch plants of larger multinationals.

The Foreign Investment Review Act was brought in then to deal with this situation. It reviewed these transactions as they took place, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency approved about 90% of them. Canadians are open to investment. We know that we need investment to grow our economy, but 10% of those applications were turned down by the Foreign Investment Review Agency in the seventies and early eighties. That brought criticism to the agency by both Liberals and Conservatives, who thought we should be open for investment and should not be turning down some of these applications.

In 1984, Brian Mulroney brought in this act, the Investment Canada Act, to replace the Foreign Investment Review Agency with Investment Canada, of course saying he wanted to welcome foreign investment. True to his word, under the Mulroney government, the new Investment Canada entity did not turn down any applications for foreign takeovers.

The Liberal governments that followed Mulroney's, those of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, had the same record, with not one application being blocked. The Harper government was a different story. Harper blocked the sale of British Columbia-based MacDonald, Dettwiler to the American company Alliance based on both financial benefits to Canadians and the critical technology argument.

On the other hand, in 2012, the Harper government allowed the $15-billion sale of Canadian oil company Nexen to the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, owned by the Chinese government, and the $6-billion sale of Progress Energy to Malaysia-based Petronas. Then, on the same day, the Harper government changed the Investment Canada Act to block state-owned foreign investments in Canadian oil and gas companies. It was a good thing but essentially closed the barn door after the horses had left.

Legislation regulating these foreign takeovers in Canada of Canadian companies has changed from time to time over the past few decades. Foreign investment trends have changed as well. The share of investments in Canada by the United States has declined over the past few decades, but it still leads the pack. It is still the main country, not surprisingly, dealing with foreign takeovers of Canadian companies because of its close proximity to us and the history of co-operation between our countries. It is followed by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, of all places, Switzerland, Japan, China, Germany, Brazil, France and Bermuda, although I assume, as I said on Monday, Bermuda and Luxembourg are there because that is where Canadian companies are sheltering their profits; they are not bringing investments from those countries. It is clear that we need to keep up with the times in regulating foreign investment, and Bill C-34 is another example of that.

Information and data are the new oil, and earlier versions of the Investment Canada Act were essentially blind to that. I have talked to numerous companies over the years, especially tech companies. At the natural resources committee and now at the international trade committee and the science and research committee, one story I have heard repeatedly from companies is that while small Canadian companies, especially tech companies, work hard to develop new technologies, say in hydrogen energy or AI advances, when it comes to expanding companies to get their products to market, they need investments. These companies develop technologies and do all the testing, and when they have a product that people want, they have to invest to expand their operations to get their products to market. We often call this stage the “valley of death” because so many companies fail at that.

In the Canadian tech ecosystem, we do not have big Canadian tech companies that can help invest in smaller companies, so too often the investment they attract is taken over by foreign companies from the United States, Europe or China. With those sales goes the intellectual property, the ideas behind that new technology, and the real core of the company's value disappears from Canada immediately.

The present version of the Canada Investment Act allows companies to report takeovers after the fact, so a foreign takeover could happen and then it is reported to Investment Canada. However, when that happens, for instance with a tech company takeover, we need some way of reviewing the takeover before the transfer of intellectual property happens.

Bill C-34 has a pre-implementation filing requirement for certain investments to give early visibility to situations where there is a risk that a foreign investor will gain access to sensitive assets or information immediately on closing a deal, because if critical intellectual property is involved, it is usually too late to stop the transfer of that information if it is done after the fact. It is not like the old days when the main value of a company was in the factories it owned or in the rights to natural resources, that sort of thing. This new pre-implementation filing could help put a stop to that, where necessary.

As an aside, on top of this, we really need to develop domestic measures to help develop and protect intellectual property here in Canada so that companies are better prepared when they get to that stage and can keep intellectual property in Canada, where it can be used to help grow our economy. Canada is the leader in many areas that are now very important in the world of technology, such as AI and, as I mentioned, the development of hydrogen energy and fusion. There are various technologies that we are the leader in, and we risk losing that leadership position if all of this intellectual property gradually leaks away.

What are some other things that would make this bill even better? First, the act should mandate the review of an acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of a company previously reviewed by the ICA. This refers to situations where a foreign company takes over a Canadian company and Investment Canada reviews it, finds the company is okay, as it looks like Canadian interests would be protected, and then okays it. After that happens, sometimes the foreign company is taken over by, say, a foreign state.

This has happened several times with Chinese companies, and I will talk about a couple of them. It is a real concern. I mentioned Monday the story of a company called Retirement Concepts, which owns and operates seniors residences in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec. These are long-term care homes taking care of our seniors. I have told the tragic story of a family's loss of both parents to inadequate care in the Summerland Seniors Village, which is one of the Retirement Concepts care homes in B.C. that is very close to where I live. Suffice it to say that Retirement Concepts has a checkered history of investigations for its operations.

Even after that, in 2016, Chinese insurance giant Anbang, then a privately held company, bought Retirement Concepts. The transaction was reviewed and okayed by Investment Canada, but less than a year after that purchase was okayed, the Chinese government seized the Anbang company and jailed its chairman for fraud. Perhaps it knew something the Canadian government had missed when that review was carried out.

Suddenly, we have the Chinese government owning a company that is one of the largest providers of long-term care in Canada, and certainly the largest in British Columbia. Not only is it one of the largest providers of long-term care for our seniors, taking care of our mothers, fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers, but it is known to provide very poor care for seniors in many situations. In fact, in 2020, the British Columbia government had to seize management control of four care homes run by Retirement Concepts because of continuing problems of poor care. It returned that control just over a year later, but it is an indication of the lack of priority Retirement Concepts has placed on the care of seniors.

At present, I do not see any direct provisions in the ICA that would allow Investment Canada or the minister to review the subsequent acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of an ICA-approved takeover or merger by a foreign private company. We have to change this.

The NDP put forward an amendment that would allow for the review of a takeover by a state-owned enterprise of a previously approved acquisition of a Canadian firm. This could be done by establishing the power to require a mandatory divestment of all Canadian assets by entities in these specific circumstances. This is an example of where we could and should take a big step in that direction.

I have been told the NDP amendment to fix this was ruled out of order because the government claimed it now has the power to enforce the divestment of any state-owned purchase. If that is the case, then it should act on Retirement Concepts without delay. This would not only take the Chinese government out of the business of taking care of our seniors, but would be a step toward taking all for-profit enterprises out of seniors care. There is not place for profit in our health care system, and that includes seniors care.

Anbang also features in another cautionary tale about foreign takeovers in Canada, one that highlights the risk of exposing Canadians' privacy and digital rights. This was again in 2016. Anbang was very busy in 2016 buying up Canadian companies. The Chinese company Bluesky Hotels took over InnVest, a Canadian real estate company that invests in hotels and owns over 100, in a deal worth $2.1 billion. It was the biggest owner of Canadian hotels.

It is alleged that Bluesky is just a front for Anbang, because that company initially wanted to acquire InnVest, and the executive in charge of Bluesky is a former employee of Anbang. However, Investment Canada reviewed and approved the takeover. As I mentioned, a few months later, Anbang was seized by the Chinese government.

This development has raised significant concerns regarding privacy issues, among other things. China's Ministry of State Security was reportedly behind the massive cyber-attack against the Marriott hotel chain, compromising the personal information of 500 million guests. This has heightened the concerns of the employees and guests of InnVest hotels. Therefore, we need to amend the Investment Canada Act to allow for a privacy protection review.

Another factor to consider in investment reviews is preventing publicly funded research and development from leaving the country, resulting in the loss of jobs and, basically, the theft of taxpayer dollars. A company called Nemak received $3 million from the government's automotive supplier innovation program. However, in 2020, Nemak closed its plant in Windsor, where those funds had been used to create new products for General Motors, and transferred the technology and those jobs to its operations in Mexico.

An NDP amendment passed in committee would allow for the review of a foreign takeover, which would consider intellectual property that was developed with funding from the federal government and issue remedies to retain the benefits in Canada. Therefore, a situation such as that of Nemak would not happen again. The foreign investment review would now also include the effect of the investment on the use and protection of personal information of Canadians. This would help prevent such situations as the one we saw with Bluesky and Anbang. The federal and provincial industrial, cultural and economic policies affected by foreign investment would now be included in the review as well.

I will conclude by running through some of the amendments that were passed at committee that strengthened the bill or, at least, changed it.

One amendment was to allow the investment made by a foreign entity, especially state-owned enterprises, to be fully reviewable, regardless of the size of the investment. Before, there was a lower limit that would trigger a review. In addition, in clause 8, there was the NDP amendment, which I mentioned, that would trigger a review on a takeover of a company by a foreign company that would see the loss of intellectual property and technology that had been funded by the federal government.

There is an amendment that would expand the investment review to include partial investments by foreign entities; another amendment would include a non-Canadian who has been convicted of an offence involving corruption as part of the investment review process. Hopefully, if they found out that the head of a company such as Anbang was charged with fraud, that would trigger a review right away and probably result in the cancellation of that transaction.

There is another amendment to impose interim conditions on both the foreign entity and the target Canadian business during the review process, as long as national security risks are not increased. Another amendment that involves national security instructs the minister to provide copies of any order concerning a foreign investment review to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.

I will finish by saying that, in this new world where ideas and data are more valuable than the natural resources we have so long relied on, we need a new regulatory framework to protect our industries, our workers and our companies.

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

Madam Speaker, I will agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North that our provinces have something in common. I dream of the day when I can go to a Nordiques game in Winnipeg. There is a lot of sharing that we could do.

The economy is changing. I think the member for Winnipeg North would be welcome on the committee because the points he has raised would be very useful around the table. I would like to see him get out of the House sometimes, get his hands dirty, and present these amendments in committee.

I feel that the government has indeed done a diligent job, but within the limits imposed on us by the shackles of Bill C‑34. The law needed to be modernized to meet the realities of a new economy.

Right now, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is examining Bill C-27. I think everyone agrees on the fundamental aspect of data protection for all Quebeckers and Canadians, and especially for children. However, when it comes to developing AI and protecting our cultural sovereignty—and here I am thinking in particular of Quebec's cultural sovereignty, our French language and our accent, which CBC values so much—we definitely need to modernize this law and go even further. This is also important for protecting our start-ups and emerging companies that have patents and those that are working on and developing AI. We have some very painstaking work to do. I thank the government for its collaboration on Bill C-34.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that Manitoba has a lot in common with Quebec and its industries, such as the aerospace and the pork industries. The other thing we share in common is the fact that we have incredible capabilities and potential.

Bill C-34 ensures there are better safeguards for companies, large or small, whether it is Hydro-Québec, Manitoba Hydro or the small company start-ups. Given the changes in technology and AI, our industries need to be protected from foreign investment. This bill modernizes that and brings us that much closer to providing a higher sense of comfort. I would ask if the member agrees.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by drawing members' attention to an important event that is happening tomorrow.

Last week at the opening cocktail reception for the Abitibi-Témiscamingue international film festival, Steve Jolin, known as Anodajay to rap fans, was awarded the National Assembly medal for all of the work that he does to protect cultural vitality. Sandy Boutin from the Emerging Music Festival and Madeleine Perron from the Abitibi-Témiscamingue cultural council also received awards.

Why am I talking about this? The reason is that, following his first album Premier VII, featuring the hit song J'te l'ai jamais dit, Anodajay, an artist from a remote region who raps in French, put out a second album called Septentrion, containing a cover of the classic song La Bittt à Tibi. His version is called Le Beat à Ti-Bi. Tomorrow, November 10, his record label, Disques 7ième Ciel, will be celebrating its 20th anniversary at none other than the Bell Centre. This record label, which was established 20 years ago, promotes rap and is likely the definitive source for French rap music in North America, with artists such as Koriass, Samian, Manu Militari, Alaclair Ensemble, Souldia, and many others, including Fouki and Zach Zoya, who is originally from Rouyn-Noranda.

I should mention that Rouyn-Noranda will be at the Bell Centre tomorrow to celebrate the record company’s 20 years, and I also wanted to acknowledge the talent and fearlessness of Steve Jolin. This will be a great day for Quebec rap.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-34 and its critical importance for us Quebeckers. This bill amends the Investment Canada Act. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑34, which strengthens the federal government's powers regarding oversight of investments that could compromise Canada's national security. More specifically, Bill C‑34 reinforces the minister's authority, giving him the power to impose conditions during national security reviews and to accept undertakings to mitigate national security risks.

These essential amendments are a logical evolution in an increasingly interconnected world where foreign investments play a vital role in the economic development of both Quebec and Canada. Consider the minerals needed to produce technological goods and electrify transportation. All mineral production becomes essential, even strategic, and therefore becomes a national security concern. Consider life sciences or quantum technology businesses or artificial intelligence start-ups. In these sectors, any investment by a foreign government or a foreign firm, from a country such as China, would automatically be subject to an initial review to prepare for an in-depth study. It would be subject to a national security review and systematically rejected unless the investor can convincingly demonstrate its real benefits, meaning its net benefit for Canada. This is an important point.

Bill C‑34 and the new critical mineral policy should put an end to the acquisition of resources by foreign-controlled firms that renders our industry completely dependent. This is something I vigorously defended at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. These are good mechanisms for Quebec and Canada. They protect our supply chains, our businesses and our sovereignty from ill-intentioned foreign investments. Each new review process essentially copies what is done in the United States, creating the harmonization that our businesses have also been calling for. By passing Bill C‑34, we are increasing the chances that the U.S. will continue to see us as a trusted partner, which is a condition for being a preferred supplier and, most importantly, for being integrated into their supply chains.

The U.S. has agreed to include Canada in its critical minerals supply chain, and, importantly, it has backed off on the most protectionist measures in the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, since Bill C‑34 now meets the requirements, the main one being to align our security policies with those of the United States. This is an essential prerequisite for including Canada in its industrial modernization strategy, in particular the development of the electrification industry. I have participated in not one, but two ministerial missions on these topics in Washington. I went there two years ago with the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development and last year with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, who was accompanied at the time by the Minister of National Defence. That shows how current these policy issues are and how vital they are for maintaining our competitive edge.

I do thank the government for its openness in committee. The government agreed to clarify the fact that purchasing a company's assets is the same as purchasing the company itself. If a company owns a mine and resources, and we purchase that company, we also get the mine and resources. This is very important, because it means that the transaction is subject to the act. This clarification was necessary, particularly in the case of intangible assets, such as intellectual property patents, where there was a gap in the previous version of the act. It is crucial that our laws protect our national interests, including intellectual property.

There may also be a flaw in the government's overall approach when it comes to protecting intellectual property. Does it go far enough? During our study of Bill C‑34 in committee, several witnesses pointed out that the government could be doing more in that regard.

We took a more nuanced position on certain amendments. I supported the idea of considering intellectual property when reviewing transactions because it strengthens our national security and protects our strategic assets.

I want to take this opportunity to mention that other ideas emerged during the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology's work. I will start with a fundamental value: transparency. One of the most important changes that the Bloc Québécois and I argued vigorously in favour of had to do with transparency provisions. That was a major issue the witnesses raised and one that came up in the technical documents that were submitted.

I insisted on the need for greater transparency around national security in the decision-making mechanisms. That calls for more information from agencies responsible for decisions related to national security. That is a legitimate request that comes largely from the professionals who support the parties involved in this type of transaction, as well as from anyone who wants to understand how the decisions are made and which criteria are taken into account.

The minister's obligation to make their decisions public represents significant progress. This will improve the public's understanding and enable individuals, businesses and all stakeholders to better understand the process and the reasons for national security-related decisions.

We got a commitment from the minister to disclose certain types of information and require parties to a transaction to disclose the names of individuals benefiting from the new company resulting from the acquisition of or merger with the Quebec or Canadian company. We are firmly committed to acting in the best interest of the Quebec nation and to ensuring that the preservation of our national interests is in harmony with our democratic values and our pursuit of open and transparent governance.

Consider, for example, the acquisition of Rona by Lowe's. Rona was one of Quebec's success stories. It was acquired by Lowe's, but we will never know the conditions set by the federal minister. Nearly a decade later, we need to consider the consequences of that. Was it because of local procurement obligations, the need to maintain a head office in Montreal or the need to keep a certain number of employees in Quebec, both at the head office and in the companies? Were those aspects respected? We will probably never know, because the conditions were never made public. If they had been, the public would have been better informed and it would have been easier to hold the company to account regarding whether or not Quebec's interests were respected. Let me remind the House that we lost a head office at that time, and that must never happen again. Greater transparency is therefore an important gain.

Now let us talk about thresholds. The Bloc Québécois urges the government to go much further and to improve overall oversight of foreign investment, with a view to preserving our head offices, our economic leverage and our control over our resources, which Bill C-34 does not do.

I would therefore ask the House to consider a new bill providing for a more complete reform of the Investment Canada Act in this regard. We tried to do it in committee because no one had thought of it when Bill C‑34 was created. Unfortunately for us, the government restricted possible amendments to the sole issue of foreign investment as it relates to national security, which is important, yes, but limited. If we could have improved one thing, that would have been a good pick. However, we were unable to go as far as adding a new provision. While this is very unfortunate, I have high hopes that a new bill could be introduced.

I think there was even some degree of consensus around the table that the government missed an opportunity to review the thresholds to which mergers and acquisitions must be subject, particularly when it comes to guaranteeing that foreign investments will have a net benefit for Canada. That is an essential condition for everyone who is interested in foreign investment.

We support Bill C‑34, but we will continue to demand loud and clear that the government introduce a new bill to examine and review the other provisions of the Investment Canada Act.

The federal government's blind spot is its failure to protect our economic levers, a critical element that is often overshadowed by more immediate concerns. The data set out in the annual report from the department's investment division, which was tabled in Parliament in October, present an alarming reality that is getting worse as the years go by.

Of the 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion that were submitted last year, only 24 of them would have been considered to have national security implications had this bill been in effect at the time. Everything we are talking about right now would have an impact on only about 2% of projects. That is far from nothing, but it is not enough either.

The rest, or 1,221 investments, remain subject to the old lax rules with less than 1% of them being subject to a thorough review to assess their true net economic benefit.

Each year, more than 97% of investments are not subject to a review. We have a right to question the oversight capacity for transactions.

This gap in the protection of our economic levers stems from the growing fragility of the Canada Investment Act, with an increasingly high review threshold, allowing the vast majority of foreign investments to avoid any substantial assessment of their impact on our economy. It is imperative that the government deal with this blind spot by strengthening the controls and reaffirming its commitment to preserving our economic sovereignty for the long term.

Over the years, the Canada Investment Act has been watered down. The threshold for a government review of an investment keeps going up. Almost all of the investments slip through and the government does not even have the power under the Canada Investment Act to assess whether each investment is beneficial.

The current act, introduced in the mid-1980s, assumes that full liberalization of investment is a good thing, that just about any foreign investment, whatever it may be, is beneficial, resulting in the loss of decision-making levers and head offices—weakening Montreal's financial sector in the process—the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers, possible land grabs and the loss of control over our natural resources. Doing nothing is disastrous.

By focusing solely on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. In an economy that is in transition, that is no longer something we can afford, not that we could ever afford it.

COVID-19 has also caused us to reflect on many aspects of impacts, including the devaluation of certain head office assets and dependence on supply chains. If we are not producing vaccines, for example, we are dependent on foreign vaccine portfolios. This cost us billions of dollars. I am eager to have this information. If we had domestic companies that could have been protected, maybe we would still have assets, and it would have cost much less to secure the health of our population.

To that end, we invite the government to table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act, not only the part on national security. National security is important, but so is economic security. In particular, the government should significantly lower the threshold beyond which it authorizes foreign investments without a review.

Bill C‑34, which focuses mainly on national security, also raises legitimate concerns for many Quebeckers and Canadians. Although protecting national security is a crucial part of the legislation, it should not overshadow the gradual loss of control over our economy.

As a citizen concerned for our economic future, I call on the government to go beyond a simple review of the Investment Canada Act's national security provisions and to adopt a more holistic approach to modernizing the entire act. National security is undeniably a major concern for any government. However, it is just as important to consider economic security. The economic well-being of the provinces is closely linked to our ability to protect and promote our local industries.

The federal government must pave the way for greater recognition of innovation zones and the efforts made by stakeholders in these vital zones.

For example, Abitibi—Témiscamingue is rich in minerals that are critical to the new economy. We have expertise in this area, and this could put Quebec on the map internationally. Once again, I invite and even encourage the minister and those advising him to recognize our uniqueness and the leaders of my community by working with us to increase economic activity in and around the mines. I also urge them to protect the efforts being made to develop these companies, which are so sought after by foreigners.

The government must act decisively and lower this threshold considerably in order to effectively protect our economic interests.

The Bloc Québécois has raised this concern numerous times, and we have conveyed it to the minister and his officials every time the Investment Canada Act came up for discussion. I have personally done so.

The current threshold is too high. This means that many potentially sensitive transactions are not being reviewed by the relevant authorities. Lowering the threshold for foreign investment will enable the government to better control transactions that could have a negative impact on our economy. That does not necessarily mean that all foreign investments should be blocked, but rather that we must be able to carefully evaluate each case and impose conditions, if necessary, to ensure that these investments truly benefit Quebec or the rest of Canada.

By modernizing the entire Investment Canada Act, the government can also put in place mechanisms to encourage investment in key sectors of our economy. Tax incentives, targeted subsidies and other incentives can be used to attract domestic and foreign investment in areas such as technology, R and D, manufacturing and many other vital sectors. The aeronautical field also comes to mind.

In addition, modernizing the act can help ensure that foreign investment does not compromise our economic sovereignty by allowing foreign players to take control of our strategic companies. Appropriate control mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that Canadian companies remain under Canadian control and Quebec companies remain under Quebec's control. This is necessary to protect our interests.

It is important to note that the modernization of the Investment Canada Act should not be seen as an isolationist measure, quite the contrary. We recognize the value of international trade and foreign investment in our economy. However, we have a duty to protect our long-term economic interests. In that sense, ownership of our resources is a fundamental issue.

The government is responsible for striking a balance between national security and economic security. By modernizing the Investment Canada Act in a way that takes both of these aspects into consideration, we can guarantee that our economy will remain, strong, competitive and sovereign.

I want to dig into the pandemic example a little more because there is something interesting there. Some companies, like Air Transat, lost value. Air Canada was in a similar situation. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology did a study on the Investment Canada Act and its potential repercussions.

I believe that Bill C‑34 is essentially the product of the recommendations that came out of the work we did in committee at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic. One of my concerns back then was potential loss of value due to a major economic factor such as COVID‑19. Given the current inflationary context, we may still be heading for a recession. Interest rates have gone up a lot. We know that the situation with the Canada emergency business account is key to the survival of our SMEs. About 80% of them have not yet started repaying their loans. Many businesses are in danger.

Had we been able to lower the thresholds and provide better protection for these businesses, maybe we could have saved these strategic assets. Based on the overall current context, we believe that lowering the thresholds is still appropriate. Economic growth can never be taken for granted.

Lastly, by focusing mainly on national security, Bill C‑34 fails to adequately address the fact that Quebeckers and Canadians are gradually losing control over their own economy. It is imperative that the government table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act by significantly lowering the foreign investment thresholds, introducing incentives to stimulate domestic and foreign investments in strategic sectors, and protecting our economic sovereignty.

As I have said before, national security is important, but so is economic security. Our future depends on it.

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

Madam Speaker, my thoughts go out to the Groupe TVA employees and their families following last week's catastrophic loss of 547 jobs. This is a heavy loss for my region, where 24 out of 30 jobs were wiped out. Obviously, we have high hopes that the federal government will be there to support these people. As we proposed yesterday, the Bloc Québécois is calling for a summit as well as a $50‑million emergency fund to support our local media, which are a vital part of our democracy and our communities.

Returning to today's topic and the debate on Bill C-34, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and one thing jumped out at me. The government tabled this bill so that it could be passed as quickly as possible. However, the Conservatives, who typically advocate for the economy, moved a motion calling for all foreign state-owned companies not belonging to the Five Eyes countries to be excluded from the application of the act, an attempt to slow down foreign investment.

Since 40% of European investment in Canada takes place in Quebec, I want to give the example of Airbus, a French and German state-owned company that, as everyone knows, manufactures airplanes in Mirabel. If the Conservative Party's motion had been adopted in committee, it would have seriously hurt direct foreign investment in Quebec.

I would therefore like my colleague to tell me how she thinks she can block all proposed foreign investments from any country other than the Five Eyes. It is possible to have alliances with democratic states that we can trust.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has put some interesting comments on the record.

For the member and anyone who might be following the debate, let us look at what the member just said and contrast that. Stephen Harper went to China and came back with the investment protection agreement for China and Canada. Let us contrast everything the former prime minister did behind closed doors, in a secretive way, in coming up with an agreement that was enforceable by law. Let us then look at what Bill C-34 would do as a modernization from 2009. What members would find is that, through technology and other advancements like AI, it would make a huge difference. It is one of the reasons we have Bill C-34 today.

Would the member not recognize that the investment protection agreement, and the manner in which it was done under Stephen Harper, contradicts virtually everything the member said in her speech?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for making note of that, which I appreciate.

In effect, the tribunal was equipped with power equivalent to a superior court of record, which could overrule any opinion of the Privacy Commissioner.

With today's bill, we see the government choosing the path of consolidated power in the hands of two ministers. The Conservative Party will continue to push for the deletion of clause 15 to ensure that cabinet decision-making is central to the investment review process, and not a ministerial power grab. Perhaps we are looking for assistance from the Senate on that.

Cabinet decision-making is at the heart of executive power of our system of government. We want to ensure that no single minister can make the same mistakes that we have seen repeated here time and again. Canadians are depending on us to push for these things to take place. They are sensing less and less of an influence and control, as the democratic individuals in our country vote for the people who sit in this place, including ministers. Therefore, it is really important that we continue to push the government to include the whole process, especially including as well that cabinet intervention.

The Liberals missed their chance to broaden the scope of Bill C-34 so that it would be applicable to changing geopolitical realities. It was a chance to ensure that Canadians and Canadian interests would have a dominant say in what would get built and what would get purchased in our country, how our resources would be managed and, above all, ensure they would be protected from complex and risky foreign interests.

Within my own province of Saskatchewan, there is a great deal of concern about the movement into our country, even in regard to purchasing of our land. Canadians are concerned about all of it, but if there is one thing Canadians are very concerned about, it is that our land belongs to Canadians and that our agricultural, industry and others are not taken over by foreign entities.

I asked the government earlier in the debate on this bill why Canadians should allow the minister to strip away any sense of accountability to cabinet or the House and empower himself in such a way. It is not in the best interests of Canadians. It is not in the best interests of any minister who is concerned about ensuring that he or she doing what is absolutely best for Canadians by limiting it to his or her own office and to the bureaucracy, rather than taking into account the voices across the House and within cabinet that represent Canadians.

When we form government, Canadians will breathe a sigh of relief on so many levels. They can rest assured that we will always take a thorough look at the long-term implications of foreign investment with respect to how they would affect our constituents, our economy in the long term and our reputation as a safe and reliable destination for international investment and for the investment of Canadians.

As I have a few minutes, serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to speak on behalf of my communities and my constituents, indeed, all Canadians, and thank our veterans and our serving members as well our reservists, who are potentially facing deployment in the near future. Everyone who serves our country and is deployed or working within the system of National Defence deserves our greatest respect and support. I encourage everyone to please ensure they go out to the Remembrance Day services. I know many have taken place this week. Unfortunately, being here, I have not been able to participate at home. However, we need to ensure that we go out, in large numbers, and support our veterans.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to a bill that Conservatives believe is critical to the safety and security of Canadians.

At face value, Bill C-34 would amend the Investment Canada Act with the intent to bolster Canada’s foreign investment review process and increase penalties for certain instances of malpractice or contraventions of the act. Canadians could consider this bill an attempt by the Liberals to take threats posed by some cases of foreign investment seriously. However, we live in an increasingly volatile world and, as we have seen over these past few months, Canada is not immune to infiltration and manipulation from abroad.

In the past, Liberals have failed to thoroughly review transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises. This pattern is repeating itself through Bill C-34. Namely, clause 15 would remove the obligation for any foreign investment to be subject to a mandatory consultation with cabinet.

On this side of the floor, we believe that Canada’s economic and security interests are paramount and this bill would not go far enough to protect them. That is why we put forward 14 very reasonable amendments at committee that would have intensified the review process of business acquisitions from foreign state-owned entities. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP rejected all but four of them. They are nonetheless critical to improving the bill, so I will touch on each of them.

First, the government was prepared to pass a bill that would have given carte blanche access to investment from state-owned enterprises, no matter their relationship with Canada. There were no provisions that would require any investment by a state-owned enterprise to be subject to an automatic national security review when the government introduced this bill. Our amendment reduced the threshold to trigger a review from $512 million to zero dollars, meaning that all state-owned enterprise investments in Canada must undergo a national security review.

Second, Conservatives introduced an amendment which would ensure that the acquisition of any assets by a state-owned enterprise would be subject to review under the national security review process. It would guarantee that not only new business establishments, acquisitions and share purchases would be considered under the review but also that all assets are included in this process, which is another very good amendment to the bill.

Third, when the government introduced the bill, it failed to address concerns regarding companies that have previously been convicted of corruption charges. This makes no sense to me at all. The Conservative amendment now, fortunately, would require an automatic national security review to be conducted whenever a company with a past conviction is involved.

Finally, the government would have been happy to pass a bill that gives more authority and discretion to the minister, despite multiple blunders over the past eight years to take seriously the real threats posed by some foreign investments. The original bill would have left it to the minister to decide whether to trigger a national security review when the threshold was met. The Conservative amendment addresses this oversight and would make a review mandatory, rather than optional, when the $1.9-billion threshold is met.

I do not understand why the government would not have automatically included this in the bill. It concerns me that so many pieces of legislation from the government are giving more and more authority to individual ministers and not to those beyond them to make sure that, within cabinet and the oversight of the House, those things are truly transparent and that sober thought has been applied.

These amendments, the four that I mentioned, are crucial elements to strengthening this bill, but the Liberal-NDP government also denied Canadians further protections by rejecting some other key improvements that Conservatives really do feel should have been there.

Witnesses at the committee stressed that many Chinese enterprises operating internationally are indentured to requests from the CCP, even if they are privately owned. That almost seems like an oxymoron, does it not? Instead of taking sensitive transactions seriously, the Liberals and the NDP rejected our amendment to modify the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include companies headquartered in an authoritarian state, such as China.

In addition, the coalition chose to not provide exemptions to Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises. Conservatives proposed an exemption to prevent an overly broad review process, which the Liberals and NDP rejected. Rather than focusing on real and serious threats to safety, the government would rather utilize its time and resources on scrutinizing our most trusted security partners.

This makes no sense. Clearly, the government has struggled to get things done in a timely manner, and this would have been an opportunity for it to be far more efficient and to also show an improving relationship with our Five Eyes partners and allies.

Lastly, rather than supporting our amendment to create a list of sectors considered strategic to national security, the Liberals and the NDP chose to leave the process up to regulation and put it at risk of becoming a political exercise, which Canadians are very concerned about when it comes to the government, where stakeholders may invoke national security concerns to protect their own economic interests. Clearly the government has failed over and over again to show it is truly operating in the best interests of Canadians.

I am glad to say that the amendments we were able to pass turned a minor process bill into a major shift in our nation’s approach to foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, but there is still more that could be done to improve it. As it currently written, the bill would give the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Public Safety near sole authority to bypass cabinet and approve projects coming into Canada.

Given past precedent, Conservatives have been sounding the alarm for years on why this would be a critical mistake. I am reminded of when the former minister neglected to conduct a full national security review of partially China-owned Hytera Communications’ purchase of B.C.’s Norsat International in 2017.

Twenty-one counts of espionage later, the United States Federal Communications Commission blacklisted Hytera in 2021 due to “an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States”. However, it was not until 2022 that the then minister was left scrambling when the RCMP suspended its contract with Norsat for radio frequency equipment.

Shockingly, Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed that security concerns were not taken into consideration during the bidding process for the equipment. This, of course, raises alarms. The Liberals also failed to consult Canada’s own Communications Security Establishment on the contract. Instead, the contract was merely awarded to the lowest bidder. This is also interesting because, quite often, it seems we are hearing of funds being shared by the government with organizations that simply do not do anything for Canadians with the money they are given.

Why was this allowed to happen? Why was a piece of technology meant to ensure secure communications within Canada’s national police force contracted out to a company accused of compromising national security around the world, as well as serving as a major supplier to China’s Ministry of Public Security?

Let us go back to 2020, when the government was prepared to award Nuctech with a $6.8-million deal to provide Canada’s embassies and consulates with X-ray equipment. Nuctech is, again, Chinese-based and founded by the son of a former secretary general of the CCP.

Deloitte Canada reviewed the offer and made a staggering recommendation to the government that it should only install security equipment in Canadian embassies if it originates from companies with national security clearances. Deloitte found that Nuctech’s hardware and software had advanced beyond the government’s existing security requirements to the point that its X-ray machines are capable of gathering information and accessing information networks. This raises huge alarm bells.

Global Affairs Canada did not review Nuctech for risks to national security during its procurement process, nor was the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security asked to conduct its own review. The government often says it will do better and can do better, but these things are happening over and over again. However, all this might have been too little too late, as the government has awarded four additional CBSA contracts to Nuctech since 2017. The government’s laissez-faire attitude to national security is simply beyond comprehension.

It does not end there. The government also cannot be trusted to safeguard the security of Canadians because it cannot even follow its own rules. In March of 2021, the minister updated guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving state-owned enterprises and Canada’s critical minerals. Less than a year later, the same minister violated his own rules by expediting the takeover of the Canadian Neo Lithium Corporation by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining. Once again, this was done without a national security review.

To make matters worse, the minister defended his decision by refusing to order them to divest from Neo Lithium while ordering three other Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three other critical minerals firms. It is confusing to me that the government would be so inconsistent. The hypocrisy is astounding. The government is once again picking winners and losers, and it is disconcerting who they are choosing to be winners. This time, national security is on the table. This cannot be allowed to continue.

We have seen a pattern of missteps by the government on how programs and projects are approved. Over the last eight years, there has been an unacceptable shift toward putting more power within the hands of ministers and outside advisory councils, with little to no accountability to this place. We certainly see that, and Canadians see it, too. There is less and less of a sense of responsibility in this place to Canadians. It is as though the government can simply go ahead and provide its ministers with legislation that gives them a carte blanche ability to do things, along with organizations and advisory councils that are outside of this place and do not have the proper oversight that the House of Commons, which reflects Canadians, certainly should have.

Often, we find that appointed advisory councils are established at the minister’s discretion prior to a bill even being signed into law. That just shows the incredible lack of respect of the Liberal government to due process in this place.

Other times, we see that the Liberals just cannot seem to pick a lane. With Bill C-27, for instance, the Privacy Commissioner’s new powers to investigate contraventions of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act were diminished by a personal information and data tribunal. In this tribunal, only three of its six members were required to have experience in information and privacy law—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very important question. Foreign investment is vital to our economy, our national security and our future. We are talking about the future of our constituents.

When we examine foreign direct investment in Canada, it is very important that this modernized bill, Bill C-34, come through. The last time the ICA was reviewed was in 2009. The economic world and the technological world have changed greatly since 2009. We need this bill to move forward.

The collaboration that was seen at the industry committee was very important. It was great to see. We continue to move forward on this bill, which is in the interests of all Canadians and our economic future.