Bill C-34 (Historical)

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.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for starters, I thank the member for the great compliment the member paid to me earlier. I will be sure to put that on the front of my campaign letter next time around.

In all honesty, he talked about jobs leaving Canada. Meanwhile, in a neighbouring riding to his and mine, there is a brand new manufacturing facility for EV battery parts that will create up to 600 direct jobs. What does he think about that?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member made it to cabinet, that would be in his riding. In all seriousness, that is a great announcement. It is great that we have electric vehicle battery manufacturing in Canada. That is fantastic. The challenge is that there is not enough of it. Canada's productivity is among the lowest. We are predicted to have the worst economy in the OECD. This is bad.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start where the last comment left off. I should remind the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South that it was the Harper government that saw 40,000 auto sector jobs leave this country over a 10-year period. That was 40,000 people and their families who had to make very difficult decisions about what to do next.

Since then, the government has been working with other partners throughout the world to attract investment here, and now we have attracted new investments to this country. This is what I will get to in why this legislation is so important, but in the process of attracting investment, we are now seeing, in a riding neighbouring both his and mine, a brand new manufacturing facility for raw minerals, to make electric vehicle batteries. It will produce enough materials to make 800,000 cars a year. There will be a piece of my riding, his riding and, indeed, Hastings—Lennox and Addington and a couple of other neighbouring Conservative ridings in every vehicle in North America in the future. This is great not just for our ridings but also for our country.

Therefore, I took great exception when the member said in his speech earlier that jobs are leaving. On the contrary. Despite the fact that some other members of the House think they are all going to catch on fire, with respect to manufacturing specifically and the vehicles of the future, we are going to see, in the future, that Canada is a leader in those manufacturing jobs. That is why bills like this are so important, because what we are talking about is protecting the interests of Canadians at the forefront. The bill is about modernizing the legislation, to give the minister and those responsible the tools they need to be always watching out for the best interests of Canadians.

This is another one of those bills where I would think it would go without saying that all members of the House would support it, and the indication I am starting to get is that they will. I am lost, because I was actually supposed to speak to this much earlier in the day but did not get the opportunity because, instead of talking about very important things like this, once again we saw the same old Conservative delay tactic of introducing a concurrence motion on a report. Again, these reports from committees come in abundance to this place. Typically, they are just tabled and dealt with, but Conservative members thought that this would be a great way to burn three hours of government time today. I am forced to speak to this later, and they know what they are doing; they are basically pushing everything down the line. The next time my good friends from the Bloc or the NDP stand up and ask why we need a time allocation motion, this is why; it is because of what is happening in the House today.

The legislation before us is so critically important in order for us to be able to protect intellectual property, investments and, quite frankly, Canadians. What the bill would do, specifically, is authorize the Minister of Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on investments in order to prevent potential national security injury from taking place during the review. It would also authorize the Minister of Industry, where they consider that the investment could be injurious to national security, to make an order for further review of the investments under the national security provisions of the act.

I think that why this legislation is so important now is that we are getting to a point where investments are flowing freely in and out of countries and where this government has brought in more trade agreements than every other government in the past, in terms of working and trading with other nations. There was a time, many decades ago, when, believe it or not, Liberals were not in favour of trade. Where have we gotten to now? We have gotten to the point where it is now Conservatives who are questioning trade.

Before our eyes, we are seeing exactly what is going on in the United States of America. Republicans who are supposed to be pro-economy and pro-trade have now turned into isolationists. I hear Conservatives heckling me, but it was just yesterday or the day before that the member for Cumberland—Colchester asked me a question and referred to the trade agreement with Ukraine as woke legislation and questioned whether or not Canada was taking advantage of Ukraine.

All the Conservatives who are currently heckling me are going to have to explain to me why a party that is in favour of trade so much would start questioning a basic trade relationship with a country that we see as an ally, a country that we are supporting during a war. They are going to have to explain that to me, because I can say with a great degree of confidence that we will not hear that MAGA terminology used on this side of the House.

I know we will not hear it from my Bloc colleagues and I know we will not hear from my NDP colleagues, but now we are getting a new faction of the Conservative Party that is openly questioning why we are supporting Ukraine and why we would even think about trading with Ukraine. That is where we have gotten to in this country. That is where we are now. This is not the Brian Mulroney Conservative Party. This is the new MAGA of the north. That is what we are looking at across the way.

I am not saying all Conservatives are like that. They are? Some of them are nodding. I could be wrong, but they come into this House and start making wild claims, like electric car batteries spontaneously burst into fire, like we heard a couple of days ago. The member tried to substantiate that claim on a number of points of order, as she is trying to do now.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we know, the Speaker issued guidelines to try to improve decorum in the House that says we are not to question the honesty of members in the House.

When talking about batteries, I provided the statistic from the Bureau of Transportation that said 3.5% of hybrid and electric vehicles have battery fires.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member, I would remind all colleagues to try to be more careful and respectful in their comments.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may continue his speech.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never even mentioned which member it was. I did not state who it was. She chose to stand on her feet and say that. I never questioned her honesty. I believe that she actually believes that, which is what makes it so incredible. That is what makes it so outlandish. That is what makes it fit perfectly into the mould of the MAGA Republicans, and that is my whole point. That is what we are starting to see. That is what is coming from the other side of the aisle, and I think Canadians are becoming very aware of that fact. Again, I will not name members, but I am seeing some confirmation on the other side.

At the end of the day, this bill is about protecting Canadian interests, making sure that we can always continue to have these open relationships with other parts of the world where investments can flow because we see the benefits of trade on both sides when we have a healthy trade relationship with another nation, but we also understand that with that globalization and the free flow of capital and resources throughout the world comes risk. This bill attempts to put into parameters what those risks might be and how the government can effectively and quickly respond to those risks.

I really do encourage all members to support this legislation. More importantly, I encourage all members to allow Bill C-34 to move through the process as quickly as possible so that we can have a final vote on it. I would strongly encourage my Conservative colleagues not to continue to play games on this issue, but, rather, allow a vote on it and see it through to its completion so that we can continue to protect the interests of Canadians, which is really what we are seeking.

With that, I will leave a minute on the floor in the hope that I encourage others to be quicker, too.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, Public Safety.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to protect Canadian interests here at home by not allowing foreign companies to come in and buy things, buy up companies and resources, that are strategically important to us.

One thing the pandemic also taught us was that relying on foreign supplies of certain things that are very strategically important to Canada turned out to be a very threatening situation for us. There were things that were withheld from Canada that we would ordinarily depend on other countries to provide.

I am wondering if the hon. member could talk about some companion legislation or work that needs to be done to re-home, re-shore, re-friend the source of things that are important to Canada that actually do not get manufactured in Canada right now?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things that came through in the pandemic was our ability to manufacture vaccines, especially at a very quick rate. That might not be something the Conservatives are interested in, because just yesterday they had a bill on the floor to basically forget about vaccines.

The member is absolutely right. This is an area, and if we are being honest, it happened over several decades, where manufacturing left our country. We started to rely on other countries in order to import vaccines. That is why the government made a commitment to re-establish manufacturing facilities within Canada so that we could provide our own supply of vaccines when we need them. That was the right move.

Are there other opportunities in other areas where we could do the same thing? Absolutely, and I certainly think that we should.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a part of this bill that talks about the ability to review any state-owned companies looking to purchase in Canada.

We have seen in the past how long it sometimes takes for the government to make a decision. I am wondering if the member opposite would agree that it would be good to possibly strengthen something in this bill to make sure there is a timely response, to make sure that that review gets done as soon as possible, so there is some certainty for investment that is needed in Canada, but that it is done in a proper way so that Canada is not being exposed to actors who maybe do not have the best of intentions for our country.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does address that. The bill specifically gives new powers to the minister to be able to react in a much quicker way, to be able to deal with circumstances like this, the Minister of Industry working in conjunction with the Minister of Public Safety.

This bill, at least from my understanding and my reading of it, does exactly what the member is suggesting in terms of being able to be more nimble, quicker and able to react to things and issues as they arise, including the purchase of assets by state actors.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating an important bill that looks at security, particularly investment security for Canadians.

It is no secret that our economy is subject to many attacks, including corporate attacks from foreign entities. What we are also seeing, and something New Democrats have called for for a long time, is a direct connection between the corporate private lobbying interests of some of the largest corporations in the world and members of Parliament. It is no secret, for example, that we have seen Conservatives accept a meal for $6,260 and $600 bottles of champagne in order for them to advance their corporate interests.

What does the member have to say in terms of how we could do better at legislating protections against, for example, corporate interests that are right now infiltrating the Conservative caucus towards private interests?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for starters, I would love to know what a $600 bottle of champagne tastes like. I have not had that luxury to be able to do that, unlike some of my colleagues across the way.

What we are seeing and what the member is ultimately pointing out here is some of the hypocrisy that comes from the Conservatives. They certainly talk a good game when it comes to protecting our interests, but then they do things like what the member just mentioned or move concurrence motions when we are supposed to talk about this important issue.

The Conservatives talk a really good game, but at the end of the day, they do not seem to be able to produce any kind of result that would suggest they actually believe in what they say.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this important bill for the Canadian economy. It is also a pleasure to know that you are presiding over our debates today. I would like to salute you. You and I are from the same cohort, from the 2015 election. We were both elected eight years ago, so I would like to salute you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to see you in the chair.

Bill C-34 is obviously very important, because it focuses first and foremost on our international trade. As we all know, Canada is one of the countries, if not the country, that is party to the most agreements with other countries. I already did this earlier in the week, but I would once again like to highlight the extraordinary record of the member for Abbotsford, who served as minister of international trade for nearly six years under Prime Minister Harper. The member for Abbotsford has an exceptional record, having given Canada access to markets in over 40 countries. His legacy definitely benefits all Canadians today. Once again, I salute him.

The issue, of course, is that the world is changing and evolving. What was happening in China 10 years ago was not as alarming as what is happening there now. What is happening in China today is completely degrading and unfortunate, especially for its people and for those living here who are originally from that country. Unfortunately, the attitude of China's authoritarian government is poisoning international relations and trade relations. That is why it is imperative that the government take drastic action to ensure that international trade relations are profitable and, above all, safe and secure.

We agree with the spirit of Bill C-34. We proposed roughly 10 amendments, four of which were adopted. I will come back to that later.

Before going any further, I had the privilege of being appointed international trade critic under the leadership of the Hon. Candice Bergen, who was our interim leader two years ago. I had requested the post. I would like to thank Ms. Bergen once again for giving me the opportunity to serve in that role for several months. I was very impressed by the work of my colleagues, because this is a department where details really matter. There are many specific elements that need to be understood and that have repercussions on many other areas. I was very surprised and seized by this reality.

I would like to commend the work done by our colleagues, especially the member from Nova Scotia, who is with us, and the member for Bay of Quinte, who sat with us on the committee at the time. They are doing a great job. Of course, I cannot leave out the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. Wow, that is a long name, but I think I got it all.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I think there is another name in there somewhere.