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.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

moved that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

I would like to point out that the Nasdaq opening bell rang for the very first time in Ottawa, Canada, this morning. This is the first time in history that the Nasdaq opened in Canada. OpenText has just been registered in Canada, and I think this is a great moment for Canada and the Canadian industry.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House. I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, or the ICA, and move that it be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Before I talk about the legislative amendments in more detail, I would like to make a few comments about the act. As members know, the ICA is an important asset for our economy because it helps make Canada a top destination for foreign investment by ensuring a stable and predictable system.

Ensuring that Canada remains attractive to businesses and investors through a clear and predictable regulatory regime is ever more important as we continue to attract significant new investment. I think colleagues on both sides would have seen that Canada has what the economy of the 21st century needs.

No matter which country I visit, it is understood that Canada is a great investment destination, particularly when it comes to clean technologies, critical minerals, and automotive and battery supply chains. In fact, Bloomberg ranked Canada second in the world for its battery ecosystem, ahead of the United States and just behind China. This is a great thing that we have achieved in a couple of months, I would say, and we should all be proud as Canadians.

I will continue to work tirelessly to attract more investments to Canada that will create well-paying jobs and spur economic growth, and I look forward to more big announcements in 2023.

Again, this law seeks to encourage economic growth and job growth in the country and provides for intervention only in cases where an investment would harm Canada's national security. I think all of my colleagues are aware of the importance of protecting Canada's national security. What is more, it also gives us the necessary powers to act quickly and decisively as needed.

Over the years, we have noted three major themes, which were addressed during the review of the act. Specifically, these are strategic and geopolitical concerns, the need for greater certainty and transparency for investors and the need to protect the economy and innovation in Canada.

Let me talk about modernizing the law in the current geopolitical context. Canada’s interactions with the rest of the world are changing. Hostile state and non-state actors pursue deliberate strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property. They do so in ways that are incompatible with Canada’s interests and principles. We also know that foreign investments can be used as a conduit for foreign influence activities that seek to weaken our norms and institutions.

The nexus between technology and national security is now clear, and I think we have recent examples of that. It is here to stay for the long run. Rapid technological innovation has provided Canada with new opportunities for economic growth, but it has also given rise to new and difficult policy challenges.

I will talk about modernizing the law and supporting investment in Canada. At the same time, we need to support a welcoming investment climate for beneficial investment. This means that the ICA’s operations must be clear, transparent and, I am sure we would all agree, efficient. We know that regulatory certainty and the speed of reviews are important factors in attracting investments to Canada. It is all about predictability and having a very stable regime.

I will now mention trends in innovation that we are seeing now. Canada’s foreign investment regime also needs to adapt to the speed of innovation. Intangible assets, such as intellectual property and data, have grown in importance in defining Canada’s economic strength, and at the same time they pose new challenges in terms of how these are to be managed.

A good example of this challenge is quantum technology. Our government recognizes the value of the intangible economy, its growth and the relevant opportunities for Canadians across our nation. That is why, in January, I announced the launch of Canada’s national quantum strategy, which will shape the future of quantum technologies in Canada and will help create thousands of jobs across our nation.

Quantum science and technologies are at the leading edge of research and innovation, with enormous potential for commercialization and game-changing advances, including more effective drug design, better climate change forecasting, improved navigation and innovations in clean technologies.

The Government of Canada is committed to supporting the continued growth of this emerging sector as it helps drive Canada’s economy and supports highly skilled jobs and, I would say, well-paying jobs as well. To ensure we protect it, quantum science is already listed as a sensitive technology area under the ICA’s national security guidelines.

The amendments we are proposing today are based on those themes. Our government has already taken steps to modernize the ICA by updating our policies to improve transparency and provide certainty to investors.

I will outline some of the developments from the past few years. In 2021, we updated the guidelines on the national security review of foreign investments. In 2022, in the wake of the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, we issued a new policy on reviewing foreign investments originating in Russia. We also introduced a voluntary filing mechanism for investors wishing to obtain regulatory certainty, within the same statutory deadlines as a mandatory filing. Investors gain certainty with respect to their plans, while the government gains greater visibility and will have five years to review and adopt measures regarding an investment in the absence of a voluntary filing. Finally, a policy on investments made by foreign state-owned enterprises into critical minerals under the ICA was announced last fall. This is one of the most important measures.

How are we responding to the evolving environment that I just mentioned, which I think all colleagues would recognize in this House?

Canada remains an open economy that is the envy of the world. However, our country is increasingly targeted by hostile actors. We are seeing it more and more. This is a threat for our national security and Canadians' prosperity now and in the future. That is why our government is taking bold steps today to protect the Canadian market by developing our tools to provide better protection against current threats.

Suffice it to say that we are living in unprecedented times, when foreign investments are being examined more closely with respect to national security, not only here in Canada but around the world. Some of the reasons for this include the COVID-19 pandemic, the repercussions of climate change on security, global supply chain disruptions and changing geopolitical considerations.

Only by taking appropriate action today to address the threats of tomorrow will we ensure that Canada remains a top destination for foreign investors. Last year, we reached a new all-time high in total number of filings, which is consistent with the overall recovery of the Canadian economy. I want to reiterate that the ICA plays a key role in Canada's economic security, and I think that is a fact all parliamentarians agree on. This legislation has served Canada well, but it needs to be updated. It provides for the review of significant foreign investments to ensure that they are of net benefit to Canada. The ICA also provides for the review of investments that may be injurious to Canada's national security.

All investments, regardless of value or country of origin, including minority investments and investments to create new Canadian businesses, are subject to this review process. The proposed amendments do not affect the key aspects of the net benefit review. They provide for improvements to the national security review process by making it more efficient and, I would argue, more predictable.

The time is right to pursue modernization of the Investment Canada Act. That is certainly my belief, and when I talk to CEOs and investors around the world they understand that we need to modernize an instrument that has served our country very well.

Now more than ever, we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to foster an innovative and healthy economy. The global environment has evolved significantly in recent years, including in global competition, investment and technology. Under my leadership, our evolving policies and guidance have been addressing these developments as they arise. We have taken clear and decisive action on transactions when necessary to protect Canada’s national security, and I can commit to the House that we will continue to do so. However, we cannot rest, and are not resting, on the success of our past actions.

The guidance and decisions issued over the past several years make it clear that some transactions, particularly those by state-owned or state-influenced investors, may be motivated by non-commercial imperatives that could harm Canada’s national security. Allow me to repeat that these investments currently face enhanced scrutiny under the ICA. We have never hesitated and will never hesitate to take action to protect Canada’s national security. That is our responsibility and we take it very seriously.

Canada’s well-known excellence in emerging and sensitive technologies and critical minerals is an attractive target for hostile states. Through these amendments, we are making sure we have the right tools to protect those sectors along with our IP, personal data and critical infrastructure. The volume and complexity of foreign investment reviews are increasing, and this significant change provides a strong rationale for supporting ICA modernization. I hope every member of the House will support that, because it is working for Canada. There is nothing partisan or political about it. This is about protecting our national security and making sure we remain a destination for foreign investment.

Fundamentally, we believe that an effective regime must be robust, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world, and now is the time to make these changes. This new bill represents the most significant update of the ICA since 2009. Think of where the world is today and what it looked like in 2009. I put it to all members that we would all agree that it needs an update. We are making important moves now to review and modernize key aspects of the act, while ensuring that the overarching framework to support needed foreign investment to grow our economy remains strong and open.

Let us talk about the amendments set out in Bill C‑34. We are proposing seven amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

First is the new requirement for prior notice of certain investments. That way, Canada will have greater oversight over investments being made in certain designated industries, especially when they give investors access to material assets and material non-public technical information, such as cutting-edge intellectual property and trade secrets, once the investment is finalized.

In my opinion, this is a necessary measure in a world where intangible assets are becoming increasingly important.

This will enable the government to prevent potentially irreparable damage. Investors will have to provide notice of investment within the timelines specified in the regulations.

I want to stress that we are taking a targeted approach here. An across-the-board pre-implementation filing requirement without regard to nuance of business sector, type of transaction or other relevant facts would have an unnecessarily burdensome impact on needed and beneficial investment into Canada without providing improvements to national security analysis. Our targeted approach will support transparency and certainty for investors, which is something we all want.

Second, the bill would make the national security review process more efficient by providing me, as Minister of Industry, in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, the authority to extend the national security review of investments, whereas previously a Governor in Council order was required at that stage. This is about being efficient. This is about going at the speed of business, and this is about agility in light of different types of transactions.

Removing the additional step of getting an order by the Governor in Council would give more time to our interdepartmental experts in security and intelligence to complete their vital work, including the intelligence analysis assessing the national security risks of a transaction.

Third is amendments to penalties for non-compliance with Investment Canada Act provisions. The penalties were set decades ago and do not reflect the current value of transactions or inflation.

For example, under the current Investment Canada Act, the maximum penalty of $10,000 per day that was established in 1985 will go up to $25,000 per day per violation indefinitely. There is also a new penalty for investors who fail to submit prior notice, which I discussed earlier. They will be fined $500,000 or the amount specified in the regulations, whichever is higher.

This update will make the penalties more effective deterrents.

Fourth, the bill introduces the authority for me, as Minister of Industry, after consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on an investment. This would reduce the risk of national security injury taking place during the course of the review itself, such as through the possible transfer of assets, intellectual property or trade secrets before the review is complete.

Fifth, the act provides greater flexibility for mitigating national security risks by allowing me, again in my capacity as Minister of Industry and again in collaboration with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, to impose binding commitments on investors. These commitments will need to demonstrate that they adequately reduce the national security risks that could arise from the investment in question.

I would add that this is a measure that is used fairly often in other countries, including our American neighbours.

Previously, undertakings to mitigate the national security risks related to a transaction could only be imposed by an order of the Governor in Council. With binding commitments that can be discussed and agreed upon at the departmental level, these can also be potentially modified or even terminated as needed.

Sixth, the bill would allow Canada to share case-specific information with international counterparts to help protect common security interests. This type of co-operation is so important when considering an investor who may be active in several jurisdictions seeking the same technology, for example. We would have more discretion to share such information, and of course it would be based on the evaluation of confidentiality and other concerns in doing so.

Canada’s investment review regime is world-leading and we share information and collaborate closely with our allies, several of whom, including among the Five Eyes, have either updated or introduced new screening mechanisms responding to geopolitical threats.

Finally, the legislation introduces new provisions for protecting information in the context of judicial review of decisions. This change will enable the government to rely on sensitive information to defend its national security decisions, while protecting that information from disclosure. These new provisions will also allow applicants to participate fully in the process.

Our record as government makes it clear that where national security is concerned, we do not hesitate to take decisive action. Our assessment of risk keeps pace with evolving economic and geopolitical circumstances.

While the ICA provides broad authorities to intercede and address national security risk that can arise in foreign investment, these amendments build on that strong foundation and improve on the mechanics of the process around national security.

I hope that members will take this bill as seriously as they should, because the world is watching. We want to remain an attractive destination for investment, and this law would achieve that.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the government has put in these policies and made some of these amendments here, but these are only as good as the minister's own scrutiny of transactions. In 2019, this minister's predecessor approved the sale of the Tanco mine in Manitoba to a Chinese mining business. That mining business now controls the only lithium-producing mine in Canada and the mine that produces most of the world's cesium. The minister did not ask them to divest, but he asked three others.

Why would he not implement a divestment of that particular investment, if he cares so much about state-owned enterprise interference?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague a lot and I think we can work together in making sure that this bill would better protect Canada.

When we make decisions in matters of national security, I think it would be comforting to the members and the public that is with us today that these decisions are made on the basis of advice from our intelligence agencies and experts. Obviously, my role as Minister of Industry, as well as the role of my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, is to make sure that we act on the basis of intelligence that we receive.

I would remind my colleague, and he will know very well, because he knows me quite well, that I never hesitate to take action. I blocked three transactions recently, where Chinese companies were trying to take equity interests in mining companies in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the minister for his leadership. I say that because this was a request that the Bloc Québécois made in a supplementary report for the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which looked at the Investment Canada Act. It is nice to see that the government wants to better protect our businesses.

However, in my opinion, national security goes hand in hand with economic security. It is important to protect our head offices, particularly in Quebec. The Quebec economy depends on SMEs and the Investment Canada Act sometimes becomes a weakness or an obstacle for the province. The threshold issue could have been addressed in Bill C-34, but obviously the minister decided not to go that route.

How can we ensure that our head offices are properly protected? How can we do a better job of that? Do we need to think about investment thresholds, particularly if we are on the verge of a recession?

In the context of COVID-19, we saw how an airline company can be devalued very quickly. Would the ability to rely on clear thresholds have been of net benefit to Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I will first thank my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He works with us on industry files.

Members will recall that Bill C‑34 concerns the part relating to national security. We know that the Investment Canada Act has two parts. The amendments we are proposing are actually amendments pertaining to national security.

As a Quebecker and as someone who is in close contact with SMEs across the country, I understand my colleague's point quite well. As a government, we must certainly do everything we can to keep head offices in Canada. We also have to attract more head offices.

I believe that my colleague will recognize that, with respect to batteries for example, we are creating a new industry in Canada, an industry that did not previously exist. We have attracted significant investments. As I was saying in my speech, Bloomberg ranked Canada second in the world for its battery ecosystem. We will continue to stand up for the interests of Canadian businesses.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today and talk about this bill. New Democrats, on this file, go back to 2003, with China Minmetals and state-sponsored takeovers of Canada's oil fields, where nobody really wanted to intervene at that time. Each year, there are thousands of files that are never even reviewed going through the lens.

I thank the minister for bringing this forward. My question goes to the point regarding the investments that we have had in the past, and some were not looked at, like smaller SMEs as noted beforehand, but also other industries. We have seen in the past that in this House we have had to fight to save Canada's potash industry with regard to MacDonald Dettwiler and others.

With the smaller SMEs and some of the innovation that is taking place, how can we, in Parliament, give this to a minister to decide if they are going to include the public safety minister? Where is the lens for the rest of Parliament in this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have worked together for a number of years now.

We need agility. My colleague is very knowledgeable and he knows that we live in a world where a number of companies are trying to use different schemes to go around the law so they will not be subject to a national security review.

What we want is additional powers for the minister to make sure that we better protect our national security. This bill would achieve what the member just said: having more agility, for example, to make sure that, during the review, we protect intellectual property. Today, there is not even, in the law, a possibility for the minister to prevent the exchange of information while we do the review. When it comes to intangible assets, irreparable harm can be done.

I hope the member will support this bill, because we need more agility.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about the importance of innovation. While my question is not directly about the bill, it is related and I hope it is allowed.

One area where we need innovation is in telecommunications. The prices are going up for people in my community and across the country because of reduced competition. The minister will soon be making a decision about a proposed merger between Rogers and Shaw. We both know this merger is not innovative. Innovation would be giving consideration to what the Province of Saskatchewan has already done, building a national, publicly owned telecommunications network.

Will the minister give this idea consideration in lieu of allowing even less competition in the telecommunications industry?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I work very well together. I am happy to talk about telecoms this morning. I think the member and Canadians watching at home know that the principle I have applied since I became Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is to make sure that we reduce prices for Canadians. The way to do that in Canada is to have more competition and at the same time to have innovation. We want a fourth national player because we have found that in our market this is the best way to make sure we bring prices down for Canadians.

Going back to Bill C-34, I hope the member supports it, because what the bill is asking for is to get to the modern economy. A colleague like him who understands so much about innovation will understand that a lot of it is about intangible assets. This law would give better tools, not only for me but for future ministers who will have to protect Canada's national security.

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

Madam Speaker, today is a significant day in regard to what is taking place with NASDAQ. When we look at all the economic indicators, Canada is doing relatively well. A lot of innovation is coming to our country.

There was something very significant that occurred today and I would like to hear the minister talk about that historical event.

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

Madam Speaker, that is one of the best questions I have heard in a long time. I am delighted.

The credit goes to all the men and women employees of OpenText. It is thanks to their talent, expertise and know-how that today we can celebrate a moment in Canada's history. For the first time in our nation's history, the NASDAQ bell was rung out of Canada. We did that here in Ottawa. We should all be proud because OpenText is becoming one of the largest software companies in the world. It just made a recent acquisition. There were hundreds of employees and the vice-chairman of NASDAQ. We were live in Times Square. It is not very often that we see Canada live in Times Square to celebrate the talent and expertise of our people.

It is a lot like Bill C-34, which would protect the IP, the intellectual assets and the know-how we have in this country. I think all members should be really proud. If they are looking for something to do today, they can give a phone call to one of the employees of OpenText to thank them for their good work so we could all celebrate as Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister told me he is going to Washington next week. I know there is a Chinese surveillance balloon going over the U.S., and I understand the government has withdrawn its terrible firearm amendments to Bill C-21. When the minister is there, if he spots it, maybe he could do something about it with an appropriate firearm.

After eight years, the government is finally getting around to making some administrative changes to the Investment Canada Act. Why is this important? Because foreign direct investment is increasing and causing us great problems in Canada.

I would start off by informing the House that, while we think these amendments are inadequate to deal with the things that are happening, we will be voting in favour, in principle, at second reading of this bill. These amendments improve the bill, just not enough. However, we will be seeking considerable amendments to improve this bill at the committee stage.

The minister went through some of the things the bill does, and I will start by commenting on a few of them. I think the preimplementation filing change required in certain industries when a deal is done, that the filing and notification go to Investment Canada, is good. It should happen after closing. I would have hoped the minister would make all investment applications subject to prefiling. I do not know what the point is of looking at a foreign direct investment after it is closed; it is very difficult to unwind a transaction.

The minister spoke about the streamlining of the process to speed it up within the 45 days. We have some concerns about removing cabinet from that process, not necessarily up front, because I think that process to start it is an important one. However, when the review comes back from officials, either for or against it having a national security or net benefit issue, we believe that should go to cabinet in all cases. I know the experience during the Harper government was that when these things came back to cabinet, there was robust discussion on every one, and this resulted in a better decision, Therefore, we think that the power to actually decide that at the end of the day should still rest with cabinet.

It does add the ability for the minister to create a list of targeted industries through regulation. We would like to learn a little more about what industries the minister is going to address. I think there are industries outside of the list. These include, to be parochial in my neck of the woods, seafood and other areas that are being targeted in the food sector by state-owned enterprises from less co-operative countries.

The interim conditions and all of that in the bill are a good addition to the bill.

We want to explore the area of the legal process appeal issues around secrecy for national security or commercial reasons a bit more at committee. We just want to make sure we understand that, in the future, we are not going to be blocking information the public should have. I think there are some transparency provisions in this bill that say if the minister rejects an acquisition, the reasons for this have to be fairly transparent and public. I do not believe there is a requirement to do that now.

However, there are some things we do not believe the provisions address. Let us start with the record of the current government regarding China's takeover of many of our important assets. The other thing the bill does not do, and I will talk about this in a few minutes, is deal with the sale not just of companies, but of the assets of companies.

In 2017, there was, and still is, a company called Norsat out of British Columbia, which also owns a company called Sinclair in Toronto. It was acquired by Hytera in China, which is partially owned by the Government of China, in the critical telecommunications business. Even though he was urged many times in the House, the minister of industry of the day refused to do a national security review of that acquisition. The minister has the freedom to say that he does not think it is a problem and he is not going to do it. Therefore, no national security review was done of that acquisition.

That is a problem because now we come to January 2022, when Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States in and then banned from doing business in the United States by President Biden. Yet eight months later, the RCMP bought radio frequency equipment to go into the communications system, giving the Chinese state-owned subsidiaries access to all the locations of the RCMP communications services. There was no public security review of that. These are the things that still fall through the cracks.

As I mentioned earlier, Manitoba-based lithium mining company, Tantalum Mining Corp., known as Tanco, was purchased in 2019. Again, the previous minister, not this one, refused to do a national security review of that acquisition. When this minister asked three Chinese state-owned enterprises to divest their Canadian critical mining assets, he did not even include this one, yet it is the largest producer of lithium and cesium in Canada, and all of it goes to China.

In 2020, we all know, the Department of Foreign Affairs bought X-ray equipment from a Chinese state-owned enterprise to go in all the embassies. I believe this minister may have been the minister at that time. No, he was not, but it was a Liberal minister, obviously, who said it was okay and did not back off on it until it was raised in this House.

In March 2021, as the minister referenced, the minister updated and enhanced the guidelines for national security reviews in the absence of an updated act, although an update could have been done. In January the minister did not even follow his own guidelines when he had a divestiture order that included neither the Neo Lithium Corp. nor the Tanco Corp.

In December, I mentioned Hytera and the Canada Border Services Agency. Of course this week we learned, although it is not an acquisition, that the scientific arm of the army of the People's Republic of China is doing research on artificial intelligence and supercomputing in our universities, our 10 biggest universities. They own the IP from that, and it is partially funded by Canadian taxpayers.

These are the things the bill does not address. It is a shameful situation that we are actually helping the largest surveillance state in the world, which used that technology not only on its own citizens but also to repress the Uighurs, and we actually helped develop that technology. Of course we know it uses that technology here. In 2017, China passed a national security act, and clauses 7 and 10 of that act require all citizens and all companies to spy on companies and people in the world. It is against the law for a company based in China to not spy and steal technology and information from companies abroad. We have allowed these takeovers to happen in the last eight years under the Liberal government.

There are several areas that we need to talk about for additional improvement. There was a really good House of Commons industry committee report, which our leader was the vice-chair of in the last Parliament. Most of the recommendations have been ignored by the Liberal government, even though government members put the recommendations forward. Not only is the Liberal government ignoring the recommendations that the official opposition put forward, but it is also ignoring the recommendations for improvement to the Investment Canada Act put forward by its own members of Parliament.

Recommendation number one in that report dealt with state-owned enterprises. What it asked for was that state-owned enterprises for all countries that we deem to be authoritarian or hostile to Canada have an automatic review. The way that is done is by reducing the financial threshold for the automatic review. Right now, that is $415 million. A state-owned enterprise can come in and buy anything it wants in Canada for under $415 million, as my friend from the NDP referenced in his question to the minister, without any scrutiny by the government.

Even in my own community, four fish-buying businesses were bought by Chinese state-owned enterprises on the south shore of Nova Scotia in the last quarter. That is important because those businesses set the price of what they get from fishermen. They set what the fishermen get. Through that process and through China's buying two international freight corridors, China now controls all lobster and the access to the departure of lobster from the Halifax airport. None of those transactions would be reviewable under this act. As a result, my lobster buyers would not truck their lobster to the Halifax airport, because China has taken it up. Rather, they would have to truck it to New York and Chicago to get our lobster to Asia. That is just a small part.

We know the Chinese enterprises are buying farms. They are buying up all kinds of key assets in this country, and none of that gets reviewed. Therefore, we would encourage and would be seeking amendments to this bill in committee to move that threshold for state-owned enterprises to zero in the act, requiring the minister and the department to follow that.

The government did not include any provisions that I can see in the net benefit for that issue of state-owned enterprises in foreign countries actually getting control of industries, let alone a particular asset. We are not looking at the concentration control, particularly of hostile actors going after that strategically. I know there is a provision in the bill that would allow the minister to create a list of targeted industries. We are a little skeptical that the list would be as comprehensive as it needs to be and would reflect a zero-dollar review, given the record of the current government over the last eight years. It has not even sought national security reviews of state-owned enterprises from China when it had the authority to do so on those acquisitions.

The bill does not include a provision to actually list countries. Other countries have looked at that. In addition to selected industries, the minister should have the authority, through regulation, to have a list of state actors and countries that we do not believe are advantageous for our economy or are actually a threat to our economy if they continue to try to buy not only our companies but the companies' assets. I will come to this in a minute.

The bill would change the process, which I referred to earlier, of the involvement of cabinet. We would like to probe this a little more in committee, but I understand the need. The 45 days has not changed in the Investment Canada Act and there is obviously a need for speed. Therefore, the point that the minister has put forward here, which is that at the beginning of the process, the minister and Minister of Public Safety can determine when that goes in without having to go to cabinet, and this would speed up the process. We believe that is a reasonable thing, but we would want to explore that a little more in committee. However, it is on the other end that we have the problem because perhaps not all ministers of industry are as diligent as this one.

I do know, in the short time I have been working with the minister, that he is the most accessible minister I have had a chance to work with since I have been in the House, and he is co-operative. I know he understands and is concerned about what the opposition members think in terms of looking at amendments to the bills, and he takes our suggestions seriously. We want to look at this issue wherein a minister who was perhaps not as diligent would be less involved in making the right decision when it is determined to be a net benefit, or not, or when the research comes back and says it is a national security interest, or not. Whatever the recommendation from officials, we believe it should always go back to cabinet for discussion before the final decision is made.

The act does not attempt to change definitions of state-owned enterprises or look at the issue of what constitutes control.

One does not have to buy 50% of a company to control a company. Someone can buy small percentages of it, get a number of seats on the board or change management, which Hytera has done. It has changed management in Sinclair and Norsat. None of those things are really looked at very strongly in Bill C-34 and need a little more consideration.

One of the interesting things brought up by the industry committee at the time of that report, and I think my friend from the NDP was on the committee, was the issue of subsequent takeovers. A Canadian company may be acquired by a company or an industry that we think is okay, and it gets approved as it is not from a state-owned enterprise. Subsequently, though, down the road, that company can be bought by a state-owned enterprise. There is no provision in this bill to give the minister the power, when that happens, to automatically relook at whether, in that transaction, we should be forcing the divestiture of that Canadian asset from that future transaction of a state-owned enterprise down the road.

That is very important, because Russia and China are getting more aggressive at doing these things. They come in through the front door but also through the back door, and we need to be very vigilant about that.

The minister mentioned intangible assets. This is a big area. In 2009 it was not so much part of the economy, but it is big now. One of the ways our economy can be harmed is not just through the purchase of a company, but through the purchase or sale of some of its assets. It could be simply that it is not just the taking over one of our mining companies, but that one of our mining companies is selling a strategic mining asset, like a particular mine, to a state player we are not comfortable with. It could be that a database gets sold. It could be that a particular artificial intelligence or knowledge-based patent we have and own in Canada gets sold. That company may still remain Canadian, but more and more companies are looking, when they develop these things, at those assets.

Probably the worst example in Canada is Nortel. When Nortel went into bankruptcy, it had the most patents, I believe, of any technology- and knowledge-based company in Canada. The Canadian liquidator's responsibility was to maximize whatever it could get for the assets. China quite regularly goes in and pays four, five or six times what a business is worth. That is what it did in my riding last quarter. It paid five times what the business was worth. It paid $10 million for $2-million-valued businesses, which is way below the threshold.

It took advantage of the Nortel situation, and almost all of those patents were sold by the liquidator to a Chinese state-owned enterprise that became Huawei, which is banned now in the United States. It took the government only five years to figure that one out. We helped create Huawei through our weak rules around foreign investment in state-owned enterprises in assets, and not just the companies, so we need to have more study and understanding. We can look at those in committee, and I know the minister is taking this seriously. I see him nodding there, so hopefully we can work with the government to improve Bill C-34.

Nonetheless, the bill is an improvement over the existing act and would give the minister and the industry some much-needed clarification. Therefore, for the most part, at this stage, we will be supporting this, but we will be seeking many more amendments in committee. I look forward to hearing from the very experienced member, the shadow minister for industry from the NDP, who has been in the House for a long time and has been on the industry committee for a long time, to see what he proposes, in terms of his speech but also his work in the House.

I will conclude there, and I look forward to the debate by all members in the House on this bill, which is very important for Canadians.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the hon. member very carefully, I think he gave all the reasons we need to modernize the law on investment in Canada. A number of examples he mentioned would be addressed by this revamping of a law that was crafted in 2009, the last time we did that. I think I like it, because in a way he listed all the reasons we should be doing that. By providing more agility to the minister, we would be able to answer these questions.

Canadians are watching because it is Friday morning. Will the member and his party support our bill to protect the national security of Canadians? Will he support the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I think I made it fairly clear that we will be voting for Bill C-34 at second reading. We want to see a number of improvements in the bill.

We are disappointed it has taken eight years to get this bill to Parliament and that a lot of the decisions the government made and let go in the acquisition of many of our assets by Chinese state-owned enterprises probably would not have happened if the amendments Conservatives seek in this bill were in place and had been in place earlier on in the government's tenure. There would not have been the flexibility of previous industry ministers under the Liberal government to ignore the public security threat.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the minister and my colleagues.

At the end of last year, we learned that the RCMP had allowed Sinclair Technologies, a company with ties to communist China, access to its security systems. We then were witness to a failure of regular surveillance mechanisms and a failure by the government to try to control access to our technologies by this company controlled in part by China. It took a long time before the government finally decided to end this contract.

My colleague is more familiar with Bill C‑34 than I am. With the new amendments to the Canada Investment Act, is Sinclair Technologies the type of company the minister, who is not listening to us right now, should pay particular attention to?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an important question, and I will answer it this way. There is a first stage to preventing what happened.

By the way, as the Minister of Public Safety said in committee this week, just because a piece of RCMP equipment is not connected in the data links of the RCMP communications, all the people who service it get access to all the RCMP locations of their equipment, can understand what the RCMP communications structure is and provide that intelligence back to China, as required under Chinese law.

The issue would have been stopped if there had been a national security review. This bill would do nothing on procurement. It would not have any ability to stop the RCMP and Canada Border Services from acquiring technologies from China.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work that is done alongside the member in the fisheries committee.

We know that one of the big components of Bill C-34 is to promote economic security and combat foreign interference by modernizing the Investment Canada Act to strengthen the national security review process and to better mitigate economic security threats arising from foreign investment. When I think about threats to foreign investment, I immediately, as a fellow fisheries committee member, think of the threats to foreign investment in our fishing industry.

I am wondering if the member can share his thoughts on how this relates to, as just one example, Royal Greenland's takeover of processing plants in Newfoundland, and if it does not relate to that, what we need to do to move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy sitting on the fisheries committee with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. She brings a lot of good value to that committee, as does the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

That is an important question because this is below the threshold. The fisheries industry, which is a strategic food industry for Canada, is not, in any of the lists I have heard from the minister, generally listed as an industry that should be protected. Our food industry is below the threshold for review because these acquisitions are smaller companies that are way below the review, whether it is from China or the United States.

We are seeing more and more on the B.C. coast that many of the fisheries licences are owned by Chinese state-owned enterprises, and on the east coast we are seeing the processing side of things and the fish-buying things in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia being acquired by countries from all over the world, but primarily China.

I understand there is nothing in this bill that would stop those types of things coming. I would like to explore this a little more in committee. Perhaps the only thing would be, at this stage, if the minister put fisheries as part of the food strategic investments on his list.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech and for the work that he does on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. His colleague from Calgary Nose Hill got us thinking about the Investment Canada Act two years ago. My colleague from Windsor West remembers it well.

One of the recommendations that was made, which was mainly ignored by the government, sought for more transparency from the minister when making decisions under the Investment Canada Act.

I would like him to tell us whether such transparency is necessary when it comes to this act. What are the conditions being imposed on businesses in terms of investments in particular?

I remember when Rona was sold to Lowe's. The minister never disclosed the conditions. Today, Lowe's is no longer around and we have not seen any investments. The government did not do anything to protect our head offices.

What can be done to protect our head offices other than hoping for more transparency from the minister about what he is doing? Is the member in favour of more transparency?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work over the years on the industry committee and that particular report. It is a very good report. I would encourage all members to read it. I support all of the recommendations in that report.

I think we can work together when Bill C-34 comes to the industry committee, to work on that transparency. Reasons why an acquisition is reviewed and reasons for accepting or rejecting it by the cabinet, the Governor in Council and the minister are things that should be published with the decision each time. That way, Canadians would be able to fully understand the rationale behind what sometimes look like very odd things, such as when we lose very important Canadian-headquartered businesses to other jurisdictions, particularly when they are, in the case of some acquisitions, countries not as aligned with our goals as we would like.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who did a really good job on the report at committee. I want to congratulate the member here. He has come onto the industry committee just recently and has done a great job. I am really pleased he has actually researched the report. I wish that the government had done that as well.

I really appreciate the fact that we are actually going to bring some of these recommendations forward.

The takeover of Rona, and now Lowe's having some questionable ownership in the United States, brings an important example. I just want to reflect further on that, because when we think about national security, it is also about competition and about product availability.

With the closures of stores, especially with regard to pricing and other things, from wood and lumber to other things we require, we need to look through a different lens about what this means for Canada, because now we have lost an iconic entity.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I mentioned in my speech, and hopefully one we can explore in committee, is this issue of whether the net benefit test is being used well enough.

We have a lot of corporate concentration in this country. We have oligopolies in many of our industries, and this is one of the reasons why we rank last by the OECD in productivity as a country. The OECD actually projects, going forward, that we are going to be the least productive of the 20 OECD countries in the world.

That is why this bill is so important, that we get to study not just the security issues but also the issues of net benefit and corporate concentration that we have in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured that you recognized me. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your colleagues from Joliette.

I will not be sharing my time today, but I would like to take a brief moment to recognize the work of parliamentary interns. I was privileged to have Sonja Tilro on my team for several weeks. She has done an incredible job, and this speech will be one of her final contributions to my team. I would like to acknowledge this contribution, as well as that of all parliamentary interns, who are distinct assets who add value to our Parliament.

Today we have before us Bill C-34, a government bill that seeks to amend the Investment Canada Act. This is the first major amendment to the Investment Canada Act since 2009, when the government introduced a national security review process for foreign investments. There have been no other proposals since then, other than a few concurrence amendments when entering into trade agreements.

In essence, Bill C-34 increases the government's ability to better control foreign investments, but only those that could harm national security. It makes no changes to the economic benefit part of the act. The issue of truly modernizing the Investment Canada Act is being avoided yet again and major issues will not be addressed this time either.

Bill C‑34 essentially makes seven changes to make the review process more effective. We are pleased to see that the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was taken into account and inspired these changes, which are the following: new filing requirement prior to the implementation of investments in prescribed business sectors; authority for the minister to extend the national security review of investments; stronger penalties for non-compliance; authority for the minister to impose conditions during a national security review and so on.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑34, which, in our opinion, improves oversight of investments that may be injurious to national security. However, the current version of Bill C‑34 simply does not include enough protection for our businesses in Quebec and the government has missed a golden opportunity to strengthen our business network and prevent our resources and capital from going offshore. To achieve this necessary energy transition, we need every economic tool at our disposal.

Is it still possible to add elements in order to better protect head offices and send a clear message that a multilateral agreement could be considered to meet the need, expressed by Quebec, of controlling the development of its economy and protecting businesses in the strategic niches it has created?

The Investment Canada Act was passed in 1985 and requires that the government ensure that important foreign investments are “to be of net benefit” to Canada before being approved. In 2009, the act gained a section on national security that gives the government the power to block a foreign investment if it is deemed to be injurious to national security. We are talking about investments in particularly critical sectors, especially those made by foreign governments or companies linked to those governments. Bill C‑34, introduced on December 7, 2022, by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, has improved the reviews and increased the minister's powers, but only for investments related to national security.

My speech will identify a few elements that could be studied seriously by the committee when we get to that stage of the legislative process.

A few members are here today to read what is in the bill dealing with investment in Canada. What tools will allow development to occur with confidence while maintaining some control over foreign investment? How important is the protection of intellectual property? What commitments and conditions are we prepared to demand of investors in order to promote the creation of wealth here, in Quebec?

We are preparing our future in the image of the Quebec model, and we simply want the federal government to recognize this. The federal government's foreign investment policy these past years can be summarized in two words: deregulation and permissiveness.

The policy provides for increased scrutiny when national security is at stake, but otherwise the floodgates are open. The fact is, all other foreign investments are approved virtually automatically and without review. Statutory review mechanisms, which the government readily insists on protecting in every trade agreement that it signs, are essentially rendered ineffective.

I want to come back to the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

In the Bloc Québécois' supplementary report, which was submitted at the same time as the standing committee's, we identified the main elements that are essential to strengthening Quebec's economic development model.

Let us talk about how the Conservative and Liberal governments have handled the threshold at which agreements must be submitted for review under the Investment Canada Act over the past 10 years.

In 2013, the Conservative government set the tone when it announced plans to raise the threshold at which the government evaluates whether foreign investments are actually beneficial. Then in 2015, the Liberal government sped things up.

Do these policies have a real impact? Yes. Over the course of that decade, things went off the rails. Every time we had a chance to study this issue in committee, witnesses sounded the alarm about the flaws in the current act. The threshold is not high enough, and too many agreements simply do not get reviewed.

The result is striking. Between 2009 and 2019, the proportion of foreign investments subject to review fell from 10% to just 1%. My colleagues heard that right. Under the current rules, 99% of foreign investments are now automatically authorized without a review. That is why the Bloc Québécois demanded that the department lower the threshold.

The Quebec model includes businesses that are much smaller in size and number. The department must lower the threshold in order to stop this transfer of our intellectual property and talent into the hands of companies headquartered outside of Quebec. This problem comes at a bad time. Over the past 30 years, the nature of foreign investment in OECD countries has changed. New investment is down, while investments in the form of mergers and acquisitions of existing companies are up.

We understand that we need to get on the same footing as our trading partners. If there is one thing the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us, it is that global supply chains are fragile and that it is unwise to be completely dependent on decisions made abroad.

The new review process is essentially the same as the one in the United States. Adopting it increases the chances of the Americans continuing to consider us as a reliable partner. That is a condition for being a well-integrated preferred supplier in their supply chains.

In a context where protectionism is on the rise among our neighbours to the south, which could seriously upset our economy, it is an important asset and the Bloc Québécois applauds it. The Standing Committee on International Trade is currently looking at the possible effects of U.S. policies in favour of the electrification of transportation that have the potential of excluding our companies that specialize in this, including electric vehicle batteries. In addition to the new guideline on critical minerals which is likely to diminish China's footprint in this sector, Bill C‑34 is reassuring, which is a good thing.

Critical minerals and the electrification of transportation also raise important issues. As in other countries, there are good reasons to protect our businesses and encourage them to set up near the resources they need. We cannot blame other countries for taking the opportunity to get their hands on our businesses, provided a comprehensive and thorough review has been done.

The region of Abitibi‑Témiscamingue is no exception. We are aware that our region will be coveted for its minerals such as rare earth, lithium, copper, nickel and gold. The region is full of critical minerals all the way to northern Quebec.

We also have one of the best universities, Université du Québec en Abitibi‑Témiscamingue or UQAT, which has international experts and top-notch programs. We want to play a leading role and really succeed in this field. For my part, I foresee the creation of a centre of excellence for critical and strategic minerals.

It is now time to create the necessary jobs and to undertake the long-term economic and industrial transformation towards a carbon-neutral future. The time has come to create a future where Quebec will be a global leader in clean technologies by focusing on essential minerals and the development of an innovative and sustainable ecosystem for the production of batteries, or what I call the green mine.

Bill C‑34 is in addition to the new critical minerals guidelines that the government adopted on October 28, 2022, and that apply to 31 minerals that are critical for the sustainable economic prosperity of Canada and its allies. By supporting the new government guidelines for these 31 critical minerals, more strategic projects for resource regions will be developed.

This is a real opportunity to prepare our own future through the creation of technological goods and the electrification of transportation. I am referring to the minerals necessary for the production of technological goods and the electrification of transportation. There is a real opportunity to position Canada and Quebec as leaders in exploration, extraction, processing and production, and to make Canada a leader in the production of batteries and other digital and clean technologies, and to develop an innovative and sustainable battery industry ecosystem in Quebec and Canada, including making Canada and Quebec a world leader in battery manufacturing, recycling and reuse.

In those areas, an investment from a foreign government or affiliated company will be considered a disadvantage from the outset. It will be subject to national security review and will likely be denied, except in exceptional circumstances.

The burden of proof is reversed here. The investment is refused outright, unless the investor can demonstrate that it is truly beneficial. The government recently blocked three mining investment projects by applying this directive.

That said, Bill C‑34 and the new Canadian critical minerals strategy should put the brakes on Chinese companies taking our resources. It should put a stop to our industries being so dependent on foreign resources.

Let us talk about security. While we are currently talking about the risks that Chinese companies represent to our security and our technological choices in telecommunications, it is just as important to assess the risk involved in foreign investors taking our resources away from our industries. By thoroughly and diligently reviewing the economic and security components of every investment, we can capitalize on those who would bring us prosperity and avoid those who would put us at risk.

It also makes it possible for us to keep pace with our allies, particularly the United States. It guarantees that we are considered a reliable, preferred partner in trade and in the development of critical mineral supply chains and that we can continue to be a part of the green future.

The amendments to the act make the national security review process more efficient by giving the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, in consultation with the Department of National Security, the power to make an order extending the national security review referred to in section 25.3.

In the past, an order from the Governor in Council was needed at this step of the process. By eliminating the need for an order from the Governor in Council, the partners responsible for intelligence security will have more time to complete the intelligence analyses, which are becoming increasingly complex.

The protection of our intellectual property is another important issue. The amendments to the act put in place a pre-implementation filing requirement for some investments in designated sectors. That will enable the government to have an overview of the investments made in sectors where the investor could obtain sensitive assets and information, intellectual property or trade secrets, for example, immediately after an investment is made.

Now the government will be able to prevent that kind of irreparable damage. Investors operating in designated sectors will have to submit notice within the timelines specified in the regulations. The bill also provides for better information exchange with international counterparts. Amendments to the act facilitate international information exchange and authorize the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to disclose information about an investor to allied countries to support their intelligence analyses and national security reviews if the minister deems it appropriate to do so.

Previously, information about a given investor was considered privileged and could not be disclosed. This amendment will enable Canada to better protect itself against investors that may be actively seeking the same technology in several countries or when there is a shared national security interest. That said, Canada would of course not communicate that information for reasons of confidentiality or any other reason.

The government's blind spot is the preservation of our economic levers. All these developments are good, but they are incomplete. The Bloc Québécois wants the government to do much more. Last year, according to the annual report the department's investment division tabled in Parliament in October, foreigners submitted 1,255 proposed investments totalling $87 billion.

Of those 1,255 investment projects, only 24, or 2%, were considered to have national security implications and would have been covered by the new rules contained in Bill C‑34. The remaining 1,221 foreign investments remain subject to the old lax rules and almost all were automatically approved without review. Only eight, or less than 1%, were reviewed to determine whether they actually provided a net economic benefit.

Over the years, the act has been weakened. The threshold below which the government does not even review the investment continues to rise. Virtually all investments pass through like clockwork without the government being given the authority, under the Investment Canada Act, to assess whether it is beneficial.

The current act, passed in the mid-1980s, assumes that full liberalization of investment is good, that just about any foreign investment is good, regardless of the loss of decision-making levers and head offices that it entails, the resulting weakening of Montreal's financial sector, the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers, the possible land grab, the loss of control over our natural resources and so on.

By focusing solely on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. For that reason, we invite the government to table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act and not just the part on national security. National security is a good thing, but so is economic security. In particular, the government must lower considerably the threshold for the approval of foreign investments without review.

We must be open to foreign investment because it is a vector of growth and development that we cannot allow ourselves to ignore. Global competition is fierce. We have a significant competitive advantage. We are reliable and our carbon footprint is by far the best thanks to our hydroelectric power.

Furthermore, we all want to support our domestic corporations and to help them grow and create wealth for Canadians. Our goal is to protect our companies and head offices, which we know are important decision-makers.

I want to reiterate that Quebec's economy is and will always be open to the world. Openness toward foreign investment is essential for enabling Quebec to access major trade networks, which is crucial for guaranteeing the prosperity of our relatively small-scale economy.

However, we must be careful about opening our doors to investors. To date, the Investment Canada Act has not helped. We are encumbered by an investment act that has been watered down in many ways since the 1980s.

The total market liberalization that plagued the 1980s had a negative impact on the quality of our local economies and resulted in the weakening of financial centres like Montreal, the withdrawal of decision-making power and tools from head offices, land takeovers, and loss of control over our own resources.

As Jacques Parizeau wrote in 2001, even before China joined the World Trade Organization, “we do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves”.

Since the Quiet Revolution, the Government of Quebec has gained significant economic and financial leverage enabling it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism—the intensity of which varies from one government to the next—that gives Quebeckers greater control over their economy.

Unfortunately, as the Investment Canada Act was weakened over the years, the levee crumbled. We have to convince the government to insert new provisions into the act to shore it up.

This is a welcome development, but it is not enough. Major investments from corporations with ties to the Chinese government have shifted things. Canada is starting to realize that it needs better oversight over foreign investments and has to make sure they are beneficial before authorizing them. This bill signals an awareness that was a long time coming, and the Bloc Québécois is happy about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I look at Bill C-34, I see legislation that is in Canada's best interest. I think of our economy generally and Canada's dependency on international trade. There is a lot of investment coming into and going out of the country. This legislation is there to protect the interests of our nation from a safety perspective. However, it is also there to ensure that we continue to build our economic links throughout the world and have investments that advance our communities, no matter where they are in Canada.

Could the member provide his thoughts regarding whether the Bloc party intends to support Bill C-34?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for the question. I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but it is also proposing some improvements, including to ensure that we can keep head offices in Quebec.

The issue surrounding thresholds is simple: What happens in the case of devaluation? We may be entering a recession, and that worries me. COVID‑19 was especially worrisome for our businesses and flagship companies such as Air Transat, whose value dropped largely because of the loss of commercial flights. This had consequences, and if its value keeps falling and dips under the infamous threshold I was talking about earlier, it could be bought up by a foreign American, European or Chinese company. This means that its head office would move, and company decisions would no longer be made based on the best interests of the Quebec nation.

In Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, we are having a major problem with flights from Rouyn‑Noranda to other destinations. Air Transat once expressed an interest in offering flights to international destinations. Unfortunately, that never happened, but there is no doubt that if it were another company, it would not be interested in the future of regional aviation.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my esteemed colleague from Abitibi, who sits on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology and is the best at promoting his beloved region. I have many things in common with him.

I, too, am a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and last year we witnessed the sale of a certain company, Neo Lithium, to be specific. The company, which now belongs to a Chinese group, does not have projects in Canada, but does have one in Argentina.

Will the bill help us hang onto our companies or our rare minerals that we want to develop, and that are highly abundant in Abitibi? Will the bill prevent this type of thing, or, at the very least, reduce the potential impact of these decisions in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow Quebecker, and I feel I can call him that because his presence at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology means that we talk even more about Quebec. I really want to highlight his always relevant contribution on issues related to economic development. He is an entrepreneur, as he likes to remind us.

I would like to remind him that my region is called Abitibi—Témiscamingue. It is important to be inclusive, and my constituents would be upset with me if I did not mention it.

With regard to the member's question, the sale of Neo Lithium did raise a lot of questions, first of all because the mechanism was not automatically triggered. It was an acquisition, but at the same time, the portion of Neo Lithium that was in Canada was an empty shell. The only thing Canadian about it was its head office. How could Canada's best interest have been protected? That said, some serious reflection is required regarding the importance of owning our resources.

We are living in a time of increasing resource scarcity. Strategic critical minerals come to mind, but this is true across a range of areas, so we need to be able to maintain ownership of our resources to further fuel our industries.

Take Lion Electric, for example. It would be absolutely fantastic if we could supply that company with lithium. However, if we send all of our lithium elsewhere—for example for Tesla vehicles because it is great to provide Tesla vehicles with Quebec lithium—we will be neglecting our own economic development. That raises a lot of questions for me.

I think that we need to make a major change in terms of our national economy. We need to start protecting our businesses.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a fantastic job. I had a tough time sitting in the chair. It did not turn out as well as it has for you.

To my colleague who sits on the industry committee, we did actually study this, as he noted in his speech in the previous Parliament.

We had an unnecessary election, which I think we can all relate to in different ways. The government never really responded to the thorough report that we wrote. The member was very articulate. He was also determined to raise the threshold issue through testimony and the report.

Does the member feel that the government and the minister should get a pass for this report? I do not believe so because the government called the unnecessary election. Because of that, we did not get the work we did through the full vetting process. I still think that is relevant to what we are dealing with today. Could the member reflect on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell him again, even though I know that he has heard it before. The member for Windsor West is sort of a mentor to me on these issues. He has been a member of the committee for such a long time.

It was very shocking for us, as a very collaborative and productive committee, to see half a dozen studies die on the Order Paper. However, with the help of my colleague, I moved several motions to revive them. One by one, the studies were all reactivated in order to ensure that the government responds, which is fundamental.

Let us come back to my colleague's question. Thresholds seem very necessary to me. I spoke about them in my speech. We also need to remember one recommendation that the Liberals dismissed in their dissenting opinion to the report from our study on the Investment Canada Act. It was recommendation 5, which sought to ensure that the minister is more transparent when rendering a decision under the Investment Canada Act.

I could bring up the infamous example of Rona and Lowe's again. It is important because the government never revealed what requirements it imposed on Lowe's in terms of jobs, investment and maintaining stores or branches in specific regions. What were the requirements? Nobody knows, but what we do know is that the company will not comply with them.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Abitibi‑Témiscamingue for his speech. He talked about critical minerals.

Obviously, when China tried to get its hands on critical minerals, the answer was a categorical “no” for national security reasons. However, my colleague talked about the United States, and the U.S. army is also after critical minerals.

Yes, the United States is an ally, but should we still make sure we retain a certain degree of control over our critical minerals and keep the supply chain, or at least part of it, in our hands?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for delivering such an accurate analysis.

Once again, I would like to highlight the work that is being done at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. As a result of the Neo Lithium study, we have undertaken a study on strategic critical minerals.

Even before the last election was called, I criticized the fact that Canada had no national strategy on strategic critical minerals. A strategy was then created based on the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

In my view, it is fundamental to ensure that processing can happen on site at the mine, in order to highlight the key role of the region where the resource and mine are located. First of all, there are obvious savings to be had in terms of transportation costs, as well as an environmental benefit, but above all, it is the best way to protect our industries, particularly the automotive industry. We know there is a lot of back-and-forth involved. An automotive part can cross the border 50 times or so. However, if processing happens at the mine, it would ensure that our national economy is protected.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Chinese state-owned enterprises, could the member reflect on the threshold he believes might be reasonable? I believe the last committee in the previous Parliament indicated that a much lower threshold, maybe even zero, should be considered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Simcoe North, a rising star in the Conservative Party. I am always interested in seeing his progress.

What is happening with China is worrisome. We know that China controls 80% of the lithium market.

If we want a strong domestic economy, since globalization is basically over, we have to be able to protect our domestic economy and ensure that our companies have the supplies they need, especially chips for building electric vehicles. We have to put ourselves and Quebec first.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to deviate from my original plan, to continue from the comments from the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. He brings up an interesting aspect to the debate on the Rona experience. That is important in a couple of contexts I want to expand on, because it was a Canadian, Quebec-based iconic company. It still has remnants today, but it was a really good sensation for not only Quebec but also parts of Ontario and other parts of Canada. The member was very astute in reflecting on the lack of information and support we got in order to guarantee decision-making as it was taken over by Lowe's.

When we think about national security, sometimes we think about weapons, intelligence and all those matters. However, sometimes we forget that our national security also includes competition in the market and access to goods and services, which we undermine by allowing foreign takeovers like that. Now a private equity firm in the United States is basically in ownership of Lowe's. This gives more of a skewed and distorted representation, when what we had was actually a Canadian iconic company that was taken over. The decision-making process, as the member has noted, was never clear to all of Canada.

On top of that, we went through the pandemic and people actually stayed at home and did renovations. We have softwood lumber shortages and we have had lack of competition in a number of different fields. We know this from the cellphone industry, for example, but we also know it through the oil and gas industry with a lack of refining capacity. The takeover of Rona is one that we need to look at and reflect on in a different way than just as a transaction.

We traditionally feel these things through the workers and those who are directly impacted at that moment, but we also have to be more complex in Canada because we are dealing with a number of oligopolies that control certain aspects of our market. Let us look at our grocery store chains, for example, where there is a lack of competition and where there was even collusion on bread pricing and fixing. We know that at the industry committee we also heard testimony that when the hero pay was ended, the grocers all talked to each other that week and decided within the same day to stop that payment to workers.

The reason I raise these things is that there is a deeper level of vulnerability in our economy because Canada is more susceptible than the United States and Europe to a lack of competition. We have a competition law that is vastly outdated. Therefore, New Democrats will be bringing amendments to Bill C-34 at committee that actually address some of these issues, and we are hoping that we will see support for that from other parties. The committee, I will note, is well led by a bipartisan effort and we have actually done some really good work. That is why I referenced earlier the work we got done in a previous Parliament and I will return to a bit later, but the process was basically usurped because of the election.

On top of that, the current minister puts forth a fair amount of legislation that has happened and is very busy. I give him credit for all of those things, but he has yet to address that in a comprehensive way. I hope that when he comes to committee to bring the bill forward, he will be prepared to deal with some of those questions, and I think he will be. We did not hear it today, but that is okay. However, the committee process will be very robust and I am looking forward to that. I am going to get into a few of those recommendations a bit later, but I want to emphasize that, just because they were in the last Parliament, this does not mean they are irrelevant. In fact, we have had to bring back a number of reports that were dealt with.

Bill C-34, officially the national security review of investments modernization act, is an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, and it actually goes back to the 1980s. It really dealt with the fact that many Canadian companies were being bought by U.S. firms and investment, and we had some of the hollowing out of Canada. There has been notation about the reviews, and right now, under the current process, about 99% are not even looked at or touched, so that has not worked at all. In fact, the act, in its modernization approach to it, has actually had a couple of amendments.

I first came to the House in 2002. Subsequently, in 2003, we did a review of China Minmetals and raised the fact that nondemocratic governments, that one being China, and state-owned companies were purchasing Canadian natural resources. What was ironic about this time period was that Canada, under Paul Martin and the Liberals, was divesting from Petro-Canada.

For those who remember Petro-Canada, we actually had a strategy and an investment in that, which was quite significant, but we divested it, shockingly. I could get into more details about that than are probably necessary here, but when Mr. Martin sold it, within six months we lost another $4 billion. We could have attained more for the assets because it went up in the market after that. That is a side story.

It also led to some of the problems we have now with a lack of competition for refining, because Petro-Canada was allowed to close refineries, the most significant one being in the Burlington-Oakville area. We have a lack of competition because refineries now produce for everybody, and that is one of the challenges that we have in the oil and gas sector.

I wanted to note that because China Minmetals and other companies under the state-sponsored flag were buying up Canadian companies. Ironically, we were divesting as a country from assets that we actually had, which was unfortunate, I think, and still is to this day.

At any rate, that brought in a push for us to ask for the security screen for that, and it is not just for China. I want to be clear on this. We are talking about non-democratic governments in general, and that is what I have been referring to, which should have an additional screen on them.

Also, something that has been missed, and I am looking forward to an amendment on this and how to address this, is the issue of private equity firms, where we have iconic Canadian companies that have been bought up by private equity firms, where we do not even know who the real owners are of some of those companies. Again, this could affect competition and a series of things, so I am hoping that this bill can look at an amendment to deal with some of those things as well. There have been a lot of challenges that we have with the ownership rules and, again, 99% are not even looked at as they are under the threshold right now.

The other thing about this bill, and I do give the minister credit on this, as he has brought it to Parliament. There have been previous amendments to this bill, in 2009 and other times, that came as part of budget implementation acts. To be fair to the government, and to be fair to the minister, when we put something through a budget, it does not get the same scrutiny that individual legislation gets.

For those policy wonks out there, and I know it is a Friday afternoon and how this place works is probably very riveting, but when it goes through a budget, the budget does not actually have all of the committee work that happens with legislation. I think that is important to note and to give the government and the minister credit for that, because now this will be referred to the industry committee, which has a history of doing some really good work.

It will get a full vetting process through this place and also through the Senate. Whatever comes out of the process we are going to go through here will get a full review, which is necessary. That is why it will be interesting, though. The challenge will be what will be admissible for amendments, what will be out of scope and what will be in scope. Those procedural things will start to work themselves through.

Again, this is the proper process to bring this through. We had warned about some of the weaknesses that we are dealing with today during the budget bill. When we talk and debate budget bills and those elements, they get washed over very quickly. That will not happen with this bill. It will have its proper due course and time in the House, in the chamber.

Again, as I noted, it will go through the other place, the Senate, and if they make any changes, then they will have to be approved by the House at the end of the day. Therefore, for the procedural elements, I think we will start on a much better footing than ever before.

That is why I am really still strongly advocating for the previous report that the committee did on the Investment Canada Act. It was over 70 pages. We heard a lot of witnesses. My friend in the Bloc did some excellent work on critical minerals, especially when we look at the province of Quebec, which has some very strategic assets for the province, and also with reflection to the rest of the country as well. We are going to be part of a strategy for auto and, as well, other types of battery modernization. That is critical.

There are a lot of issues to be dealt with and unpack there. I think one of the things that we look at in this bill is, again, the threshold. There are two areas that the act really kind of focuses on. The net benefit would be, if the takeover takes place, whether there will be an improvement in the Canadian economy and the workplace, and it is very subjective about that. That has been whitewashed many times before.

I will give another good example, and I am showing my age here again, with Future Shop versus Best Buy. Essentially, we had two consumer electronics marketing platforms in this country, and Best Buy basically bought up Future Shop, another Canadian iconic company, and we now have less competition, less innovation and less access for the public to access some of the services that are necessary.

I know we like to buy a lot of things online right now, but especially when it comes to the maintenance and repair of electronics, we still require certain services. Future Shop is gone now, which basically affects competition. I think that Best Buy's only competitor is really the online stores now; maybe Staples and a handful of other stores still compete with us. However, this was approved and we lost Future Shop.

The other case I want to refer to when we think about strategy, which is frustrating for me, is Zellers. If people remember Zellers, it was another iconic Canadian retail store. I put forward then, and I think the government needs to reflect on its approval of this takeover, that it had higher wages, a union, benefits, and at a time when the industry was losing money, a profit margin. Then the American store Target was allowed to come in. Target took over some stores and closed others. It then exited the country. This was basically done to eliminate competition, and it eliminated jobs as well.

I do not know what it was like in other stores, but in Windsor, it was ridiculous when Target came in. I was a goalie in hockey, but I am retired now because of my knee and a lot of other reasons. Hon. members have also reminded me of my goals against the average. At any rate, Target had multiple aisles of just one hockey stick, so it was a false takeover. These are serious things because we lost not only those jobs but also competition in a market where we have seen diminishing retail assets. It was not just about the store; it was also an anchor for other malls and shopping centres. What I am getting at is that there are many ways of looking at this.

When we have this review in Parliament, it will be interesting to see what we get regarding the capability to expand the current form of the bill. I am not sure what is going to be ruled in or out of order for some of the amendments I have. However, it will be interesting, and I am sure my colleagues will have some of those things.

One important point about the bill, and I want to talk about a couple of things that I think are important, is that a notification process would be used. Therefore, the minister would get more of a heads-up about takeovers. For me, and I think it is also fairly safe to say for some of my colleagues from the Conservatives, the Bloc and perhaps the Liberals, we will probably want more reviews or access to reviews. In my opinion, that would provide a benefit for the process. This is also going to be important when we are looking at some of the more serious innovations that we have coming forward and certain companies.

One of the things that sticks in my craw is when we have Canadian taxpayers giving money to corporations, and because there are no rules, the corporations move the innovation out of the country.

I will give a quick example. Former minister Bains, whom I enjoyed working with in this House and this chamber, gave money to Nemak, an auto manufacturer from Mexico in Windsor. Nemak had bought out a Ford assembly provision. It got money for the innovation for a transmission. This was the only Canadian facility. When this was announced, I asked what guarantees the government had that it was going to keep the work here. The government said that there was no problem and it was all taken care of. I asked how. The government said that it was done and not to worry, and that was the end of it. What ended up happening is that Nemak was a terrible employer. Not only that, but it did the innovation in the Windsor plant and then moved it to Mexico and closed the Windsor plant. We had to fight, including in court, to protect the workers' pensions and the money that was owed to them. I will not give the government credit for that, because it was horrible in this case; we had to take it to court as well.

I have seen enough of this in my community in the auto sector. I know this personally. My brother worked for Windsor Plastic Products. A foreign company took it over and took not only all its assets but also its money for the United Way and employment insurance. It basically took everything it could out of this country. We have seen this take place a few times. Nemak got the Canadian taxpayers' money and did the innovation. Now we are giving auto supports to other companies to compete against the product that was produced at our expense and is now built in Mexico. It makes no sense.

There has to be something in this act that is going to deal with some of these things. Maybe that is where we get more transparency with regard to any type of endeavours that the minister is allowed to do, so that the bill does have that, where the minister can put more specifics on it.

As noted earlier, some of the smaller companies we have can actually be some of the most critical. We spend a lot of money for SR&ED tax credits. They are for research, development and so forth. Those all have to become public if a Canadian company is going to be taken over by any foreign company, whether it is a state one, a non-state one or a private equity firm. I think we have the right to know if Canadian taxpayers' money has been used, whether through tax relief or innovation support, which are excellent and I support a lot of those things. There should be no shyness when one is going to the taxpayer to ask for support for a business. It has to be disclosed later on. There should be a full review. That is one of the things that can be reviewed publicly.

This legislation also creates another process for judicial review that will be behind closed doors because some of the information can be challenging for the government and the company to deal with as it involves security.

When I talk about security, I want to highlight the transition we are seeing right now in some of these small and medium-sized companies. I would like to see greater reviews on them because they deal with privacy and intellectual property. We are getting into artificial intelligence, for example, and we are actually subsidizing quite a bit of innovation on that front. I think there needs to be full disclosure for those things, to at least notify us that the money went in there. Maybe we do not know all the types of products and services that are being done, if there is sensitive information, but at least it can be noted that they received taxpayer funding. I think that would give us more confidence when it comes to this issue.

When we think of these Internet-type services and other things that are taking place right now, we have had some referrals stopped. We had MacDonald Dettwiler, and I want to thank Peggy Nash, former member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, who did an amazing job in this chamber stopping that takeover. The other one we fought against, and thank goodness it was stopped, was for potash, another highly publicly subsidized company, but also a natural resource that is very important in Canada. When we think about the critical minerals in the upcoming years in the auto sector, we need to be mindful of that.

Microchips were referenced in previous discussions by members from the Conservatives and the Bloc. We used to be the producers for the world in the Mississauga area. Then we allowed this to be outsourced to Taiwan quite a bit, and now the United States is into massive subsidization. We are doing some investments now too. We need to make sure that we have a long-term plan for those things.

When certain industries get a certain amount of money from the public, we should be looking at some rules and regulations on time frames once they get significant public income. That should be reviewed and mandated to have a different threshold.

Other countries have been dealing with this issue as well. Japan has brought in some new legislation, as well as Australia and even India when it comes to its land borders with other countries and investments. They brought in some new rules, as did the European Union.

I do appreciate the fact that this is coming through the chamber this time. Many times during the budget debates, my responsibility for the New Democrats was to challenge the fact that the government was doing it through a budget process and it rubber-stamped it. We are in this situation for a reason. It is because we did not do the right thing.

This is a start to do the right thing. When this does get to committee, I look forward to a co-operative process and hopefully we can do some comprehensive reform.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way and I actually worked together in a previous Parliament on the industry committee. We tabled a report last Parliament with respect to this issue.

I would like to offer the member an opportunity to share with the House some of what we heard when we studied this in the 43rd Parliament that he would like to see implemented in this bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that my former committee chair is here, who did a remarkable job. Our current chair is good, too. With all sincerity, the committee operates well, and she has a particularly good history with it, which includes this report that I referenced and that has her name on it.

We heard a lot of really good testimony, and that is why it is 74 pages long. There was a very robust approach to it. One of the recommendations was a simple one, and I think this is appropriate. Recommendation number two is as follows:

That the Government of Canada introduce legislation to amend the Investment Canada Act so that thresholds are reviewed on an annual basis.

A simple one like that could be done as a routine procedure for what we do. There are other more comprehensive recommendations. There were seven recommendations with a couple of subsections as well that have not been done. There were nine in total, and I look forward to working on those. Again, I thank the former chair for her work.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Windsor West, who I enjoy working with on the industry committee, and the former chair who did marvellous work on it. It is a great report. My personal favourite is recommendation number one, which is that the state-owned enterprises be reduced to zero for review.

The Investment Canada Act focuses on the acquisition of companies. However, it does not focus at all on the acquisition of individual assets. These would be things like a mine sold by a company to a foreign interest; or a technology sold, without the company being sold, to an interest that may not be in Canada's best security interest or net benefit interest. I do not recall hearing about this. Could the member comment on that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has been terrific on the committee so far.

This is something that we missed in the previous review, and it is appropriate for us to deal with this. I have referenced private equity firms, but there could be billionaires or others that are tinkering with different things. We could look at individual assets or innovation that is new.

I am looking forward to that, and I think the amendments are appropriate. It is refreshing, because we did not look at that in the previous report. That is why an annual review for thresholds is important, because this is an ongoing thing, especially with how things move so quickly right now.

I am looking forward to the member's contribution, and I thank him for adding that. Again, that is a new lens that we did not deal with in the past.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Windsor West for a speech full of good examples of things that have happened in the past. I would also reflect on the fact that, by a hair's breadth, we nearly lost Aecon Construction to the People's Republic of China. Again, that would never have had a security review if we had not started mentioning it in this place. This is progress.

I want to reflect and ask the hon. member for Windsor West if we do not want to also have a lens on. I know this is still in the philosophical framework of Bill C-34. It is still in the frame that we are better off when everything is traded all around the world and we have a massive globalized economy. Clearly, we are always going to have a globalized economy. However, in the wake of COVID, would it not be better to have many supply chains within Canada, to rebuild Canada's manufacturing capacity, to have the jobs here at home and to have food grown at home for Canadians?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I have floor, I will give a plug to the member and thank her for her hard work in putting together the all-party rail caucus. She deserves credit for that. She has been pushing this for more than six months, and we had the first meeting. I thank her for that initiative.

Also, I thank the member for mentioning Aecon Construction, which I raised several times in the House. It is interesting because it relates to me back at home. Aecon Construction was part of, and is still part of, the Gordie Howe project in the infrastructure along Canada's busiest border in my riding. That was actually going to be bought up by the Chinese government at that time.

Try to imagine this. I raised this several times. I worked with Congress and Senate members on the U.S. side. They did not want to have a bridge, which was billions of dollars and had the highest involvement in trade, built between Canada and the United States, that would be owned by the Chinese federal government or any other government. That was a non-starter and an important one.

The supply chain relates to that as well. During the COVID experience, we saw that there were contributions to some medicines that we had in the past and some new vaccines. We have lost control of that, so now we are actually in an embarrassing situation with one company that got Canadian money and is folding.

The member brings a really good point to that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor West has a huge track record in the House of Commons of actually ensuring that we protect Canadian jobs and stimulate the economy. We have seen under the Conservatives and under the Liberals the selling out of portions of our economy.

With the member for Windsor West's long experience and deep knowledge of industrial policy, what would he do when he became the minister of industry in an NDP government?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, a couple of things come to mind right away, which also relate to the previous question and the so-called free-market economy. I do not know where this exists. There are a couple of points. First of all, trade always existed. We just created boundaries. My area was settled for 300 years, but prior to that, it was indigenous; in terms of its trading area, trade always happened. There is no doubt that we are always going to be trading. However, countries protect certain industries. When we look at the United States, which is always held up as the model of capitalism, they have the Jones act and the Buy American Act. They have different pieces of legislation related to procurement for the arms industry and the supply and manufacturing industry, all those things that are national and strategic. I want a national policy on manufacturing to be developed. We have done some of those things in the past, but we should at least match our competition in the world and be careful about how we have investments come in. We should also be careful about vulnerability with regard to where we invest public money and then have it actually go across a board.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on the question from my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets about individual assets ending up in the hands of foreign state-owned enterprises. I am thinking particularly of state-owned enterprises from nondemocratic nations, as the member for Windsor West mentioned. When we fund research chairs at Canada's research universities, at the end of the process, we end up owning an asset born of Canadian ingenuity. This does not go to national security necessarily, but it certainly goes to the strength of our economy.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the money that we have spent publicly for national research chairs, which is an investment in our education system, is another good example that we did not get into. We have a poor record of actually moving that type of research and innovation to market, so that is a separate story. This could be a good record, and I am looking forward to looking at this more. National security is very much an open field with regard to how that is being interpreted, so we will see what definition the minister has. However, I think I have a much more open perspective on that, as I noted in my speech. Consumer issues should also be looked at; I view these issues through a national security lens as well.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Canada has a long-standing reputation for welcoming foreign investments and a strong framework to promote trade while advancing Canadian interests. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for foreign investments in the world.

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

Bill C-34 would implement a set of amendments to improve the national security review process of foreign investments and modernize the ICA. Collectively, these amendments represent the most significant legislative update of the ICA since 2009. These amendments would also ensure that Canada’s review process is consistent with our allies'.

However, in my view, there is another issue in foreign direct investment that should be looked into, and that is dealing with economic security. I believe this is not only an opportunity but also a necessity that we deal with foreign direct investment that results in economic stagnation of any sector of our economy, thus affecting our long-term economic security.

Let me explain this by first quoting a couple of sentences from the backgrounder that was published, which states, “The Act is designed to encourage investment, economic growth and employment”. The backgrounder also states, “The Government of Canada has committed to promoting economic security and combatting foreign interference by modernizing the ICA to strengthen the national security review process and better mitigate economic security threats arising from foreign investment.” For me, the keywords are “economic security”. There is no mention of the words “economic security” in the bill tabled by the government that we are debating today. Probably the thought is that “economic security” and “national security” are considered as synonyms.

I will now explain the importance of economic security. Canada is growing. Our population is growing. Our economy and GDP are growing, and we need our economic sectors to grow and contribute to economic growth and employment. If any economic or industrial sector does not grow and does not contribute to economic growth due to foreign direct investment, then in my view this is a threat to economic security. Any stagnation or complete lack of economic growth in a growing economy will directly affect our economic security in the medium to long term.

I will give two examples where foreign direct investment in Canada has resulted in stagnation of economic growth, which in turn is a threat to our economic security.

The two industrial sectors that are prime examples of this are the steel and aluminum industries in Canada. All steel and aluminum sector companies in Canada are foreign-owned. Due to our encouragement of foreign direct investment, today both of these sectors, with 100% foreign ownership, have been reduced to a branch office of multinational companies that are dominating aluminum and steel industry worldwide. Due to this 100% foreign ownership, there has been no increase in production capacity in both of these sectors in Canada for the last 20 years.

During the last 20 years, aluminum production has basically stagnated at about three million tonnes. While many new aluminum smelters are being set up in China and other countries, the installed capacity of the aluminum sector in Canada has stagnated. It is the same with the steel industry. During the last 20 years, the installed capacity has basically stagnated at about 15 million tonnes. Not only is there no growth in the production capacity of steel and aluminum, but due to 100% foreign ownership, Canada’s steel and aluminum exports are limited just to the U.S. and Mexico. There are hardly any Canadian steel and aluminum exports to Europe or the growing markets in Asia.

Canada has signed numerous free trade agreements across the world. We have free trade agreements with Europe and Asia-Pacific countries. In total, we have free trade agreements with over 50 countries, but has the aluminum and steel sectors taken advantage of these free trade agreements to increase Canadian exports? The answer is absolutely no.

Therefore, my question is this: If our welcoming foreign direct investment leads to 100% foreign ownership in any entire industrial sector and this results in growth stagnation of that sector, is it not a threat to our long-term economic security? If 100% foreign ownership prevents Canadian industry from taking advantage of our natural resources and our expertise to export Canadian goods across the world, is this not a threat to our long-term economic security?

We need all sectors in our industry to add value to our natural resources and contribute to Canada's economic growth by increasing their capacity to produce. We need all economic sectors to build on our many decades of knowledge and expertise to contribute to Canada's economic growth by increasing Canadian exports across the world. I again state that if any economic or industrial sector does not grow and does not contribute to economic growth due to foreign direct investment, then in my view this is a threat to economic security. Also, any stagnation or complete lack of economic growth in a growing economy will directly affect our economic security in the medium to long term.

I call upon the House to take this opportunity to address this shortcoming in the Investment Canada Act. Other than that, I completely agree with everything else that has been proposed in the bill. There was a need to update and streamline the administrative process in light of a shifting geopolitical environment and a need for alignment with international allies and for better coordination efforts with allies.

The world looks a lot different now than in 2009 when the act was last amended. The global market has rapidly changed with shifting geopolitical threats. Canada's interactions with the rest of the world are changing. The government has seen a rise in state-sponsored threat activities from hostile state and non-state actors. They are attracted by Canada's technologically advanced and open economy and world-class research community.

The level of sophistication of these threats has also increased. Hostile state and non-state actors are deliberately pursuing strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property through foreign investments that will damage Canada's economy and undermine national security while controlling the supply chain of critical goods. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for foreign investments in the world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this threat by creating vulnerabilities that could lead to opportunistic, harmful investment behaviour by foreign investors. They are looking to buy up vulnerable Canadian businesses. In response, the government has taken swift, concrete action to enhance scrutiny on inbound investments related to public health and critical goods and services.

The government again took action recently by enhancing scrutiny of investments involved in sensitive goods and technology, such as critical minerals, critical infrastructure and sensitive personal data. Through these amendments, the government is prepared to once again take action to strengthen the national security review while still allowing for positive foreign investments. Economic-based threats to national security are of increasing concern not just for Canada but for our allies as well.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, this issue is really important to my colleague. I would like to know if there is anything else he thinks we should be also including in this bill to make sure this is as strong as it could be.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, in addition to the economic security issues I discussed, my colleagues brought forward others earlier in debate, like the purchase of intangible assets other than the company itself, and some issues that were brought forward by the member from Windsor on the lack of competition resulting in foreign direct investments. These are the kinds of things that need to be considered now. We know this act has not been looked at in, I think, the last 13 years. This is the first opportunity we have and we need to use this opportunity to consider all aspects that are directly related.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Nepean about state-owned enterprises from not-so-democratic countries, or hostile countries. It was recommendation number one of the industry committee's report from the last Parliament on this issue that the threshold for consideration as a national security or net benefit test under this act be reduced from the $415 million to zero dollars, so that every transaction in every type of industry by a state-owned enterprise from a nondemocratic country would be reviewed. That is not in this bill. Would the hon. member support it being amended that way?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, investment by state-owned enterprises from non-friendly countries obviously needs to be looked very deeply into. I am not sure whether we should have a minimum threshold, but as I said, every single investment by state-owned enterprises needs to be looked into.

At the same time, in addition to state-owned enterprises, I also want to highlight investment by global multinational companies in the steel and aluminum sector, as I mentioned, that have made direct investment. One hundred percent of the sector is foreign owned, which is leading to Canadian companies becoming the branch offices of these multinational companies and is curtailing the potential to grow Canadian exports around the world.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois are still reeling from the sale of Rona to the American company Lowe's and all the negative consequences that followed.

In my hon. colleague's opinion, if Bill C-34 passes as is, will the interests of our economy be better protected with respect to potential transactions?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, everything that affects Canada's competitiveness, growth, economic security or national security needs to be looked into. Let me be very clear. I am for foreign direct investment. I am for free trade. However, all aspects that affect our national security and economic security need to be looked into.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

Bill C-34 implements a set of amendments to improve the national security review process of foreign investments and modernize the Investment Canada Act. Collectively, these amendments represent the most significant legislative update of the ICA since 2009.

These amendments would also ensure that Canada's review process is consistent with those of our allies. This consistency is something that business owners and stakeholders within the riding of Waterloo have also spoken to me about. It is something that is important to them, as Canada is a trading nation and being aligned with our allies is something of importance.

Canada has a long-standing reputation for welcoming foreign investments and a strong framework to promote trade, while advancing Canadian interests. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for foreign investments in the world.

For some history, the Investment Canada Act was enacted 38 years ago in 1985, to encourage investment in Canada that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities. The act allows the government to review significant foreign investments to ensure that these benefits exist. The act was updated in 2009 to include a framework for a national security review of foreign direct investments. Since then, and for the longest time, the ICA has been one of the only pieces of legislation in the world that provides a reviewing mechanism for the net benefit and national security threats of foreign direct investments.

It is clear that the federal government has long played a leadership role in setting a framework for investment review that attracts needed positive foreign direct investments without compromising on national security. However, the world looks a lot different now than it did in 2009. The global market has rapidly changed along with shifting geopolitical threats. Canada is growing and our interactions with the rest of the world are changing.

The government has seen a rise in state-sponsored threat activities from hostile state and non-state actors. They are attracted by Canada's technologically advanced open economy and world-class research community. This is something we know very well in the riding and region of Waterloo.

The level of sophistication of these threats has also increased. Hostile state and non-state actors are deliberately pursuing strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property through foreign investments that could damage Canada's economy and undermine national security while possibly controlling the supply chains of critical goods. These concerns are real and are why debating and advancing legislation is necessary.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created additional vulnerabilities that could lead to opportunistic and potentially harmful investment behaviour by foreign investors. In response, the government has taken swift, concrete action to enhance scrutiny on inbound investments related to public health and critical goods and services. The government has again taken action recently by enhancing scrutiny on investments involved in sensitive goods and technology, such as critical minerals, critical infrastructure and sensitive personal data.

Through these investments, the government is prepared to once again take action to strengthen the national security review, while allowing for positive foreign investments. Canada is a trading nation and we work with international allies. The reality is that economic-based threats to national security are an area of increasing concern, not just for Canada but for our allies as well.

Other jurisdictions internationally are moving in response to the shifting geopolitical threats either by amending or by putting in place new investment screening regimes. Our action is needed to bring Canada into greater alignment with our international partners and allies. For example, I understand that Australia has updated its laws on foreign direct investment. It made a prominent change by introducing authorities to protect national security in January 2021. These include fresh powers for the Australian government to require mandatory notification for transactions involving a national security business before the transactions are closed.

Additionally, the United Kingdom introduced a new stand-alone regime on national security and investment in January 2021. The act creates, for the first time in the U.K., a mandatory obligation to secure clearance for transactions that acquire control of a business in around 17 specified and sensitive sectors before they are completed.

The U.K. has also introduced legislation that allows the government to impose interim orders while the review is being conducted, preventing foreign investors from obtaining confidential information or accessing sensitive sites or assets until the review is complete.

Our cousin to the south, the United States of America, overhauled its foreign direct investment laws in 2018. The amendments added new types of transactions subject to government review and, for the first time ever, mandated notification of transactions involved in critical technologies, certain critical infrastructures or sensitive personal data of American citizens. New regulations fully implementing the act took effect in February 2020.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-34 would address the concerns we have heard from Canadians and which have been echoed by our allies. The proposed amendments in Bill C-34 would address these concerns by introducing new preimplementation filing requirements for specified investments, as well as the power to implement interim conditions during national security review of the investment.

This would provide Canada with the new governance capacity to address the increasingly complex threat landscape. Bill C-34 would also ensure that Canada's foreign direct investments screening regime remains world-leading.

As I have shared, Canada and our allies share similar national and economic security concerns. They are concerned with threat actors acting and operating in multiple jurisdictions to secure a monopoly in critical assets and technology.

It is becoming increasingly important to share information with allies and support national security assessments to prevent these threats from happening.

Previously, the minister had limited capacity to share case-specific information with international allies. Bill C-34 would introduce the authority for more threat information sharing by the minister with international counterparts for national security reviews.

This could help both Canada and our partners defend against an investor who may be active simultaneously in several jurisdictions and be seeking same sensitive technology or critical assets.

For example, the amendment would allow the minister to reach out to a foreign partner and disclose information about the investor to gain additional information and to support Canada's own national security assessment. That said, Canada would not be obligated to share such information where there are confidentiality or other concerns.

There is never a shortage of critics, but this legislation is about making sure that Canada welcomes foreign investment and trade that encourages economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada for Canadians.

I believe that this approach is pragmatic and principled, and provides a coherent and solid framework to address evolving geopolitical threats while allowing Canada's review regime to be more aligned with our international allies. If there are ways to make this legislation better, I believe we have the opportunity now to work together to make that happen.

We are currently at second reading. This legislation is being debated in the House. To see it go to committee where it can be further scrutinized, where witnesses can attend and appear and amendments can be made, would really allow for this legislation to work for more of the Canadian economy.

With Bill C-34, Canada would continue to encourage positive investments without compromising national security. I think it is really good that this legislation is being debated as a stand-alone piece of legislation, where we actually can get into the details of what would work better, because it is important we have legislation that promotes and supports foreign investment but also makes sure we do not compromise national security.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member has been a cabinet minister, so I would like to ask her this question in the context of her time in cabinet.

This bill would remove the minister's responsibility to go to cabinet to actually seek agreement to do a national security review and would remove them from having to report back to cabinet on that, unless they deem it to be a national security review.

Do you think that removing cabinet from the process of determining that will help, because in the past, this government, which I think you were in the cabinet for—

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

I was not anywhere. I thank the member for correcting himself. That is just a reminder.

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

Madam Speaker, the government for which the member was in cabinet actually approved two acquisitions. One was Hytera acquiring Norsat, and the other was a Chinese state-owned enterprise acquiring a mining entity that has 65% of Canada's lithium production. The government approved those without a national security review. There is nothing in this bill that would change that, especially if the minister does not have to go to cabinet.

I would like the member's views on that.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think in my comments that I shared today I did state there will never be a shortage of critics, and it is important that we debate and that we make sure this legislation right. This is about the economic and national security of Canada. Foreign investments and trade are necessary for Canada's economic growth and employment opportunities, but need to be done while protecting Canada's national interests. I think that is why looking at this legislation is really about making sure the way we move forward is better for Canadians, for Canada's economy and for ensuring our national security. I think the member knows very well that we do have a process, and that this is the time for providing feedback that is going to improve this legislation. That is why the member was elected. He was not elected only to oppose, but also to debate how we make legislation work better for his constituents, my constituents, our constituents and our country, and this is the time to do it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the speech given by the member opposite in support of Bill C‑34, which gives the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry a little bit more power to review foreign investments. That in itself will be good for national security. However, I do not think we should limit ourselves to national security, but rather, I think other criteria should be added for reviewing an investment.

On the subject of investment review, my colleague across the aisle used to be a cabinet minister in this government, and I remember one particular case at that time, the sale of Rona, that required a government review. Before authorizing the sale, the net benefit had to be reviewed. It was not a matter of national security, but the net benefit still had to be reviewed.

We submitted an access to information request to find out the contents of that mysterious net benefit review. The response that came back was that there was no documentation that corresponded to our request.

I cannot help but wonder whether this government's reviews really are all that rigorous, or are they done based on the weather forecast or a coin toss.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is time that we actually debated this bill. We need to make sure that there are solutions and processes in place that will work for more Canadians.

I would say that, yes, we can always look at what has taken place in the past. We can also ask how we go about it to make sure we have systems in place so these concerns the member is raising are addressed and to make sure information is available, and then that we move forward in that way. I think that is why this legislation today is a stand-alone piece of legislation. It is not within a budget bill. It is not within something else. It is one piece of legislation we are debating because of the importance of the topic. I think everything the member has to contribute is important, and I think that once this legislation gets to committee, we can ensure that any of the concerns he is raising are addressed. I am sure the government looks forward to working with him.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to get a perception of where the Liberals might be open for amendments on this. I remember coming to this place and watching Paul Martin sell off Petro-Canada, an example of foreign investment and not having any types of concerns. In fact, this issue was first raised with China Minmetals. We brought that to committee, because it was actually buying up part of the Canadian oil sands. Subsequently, we watched iconic companies like Nortel disappear. We have watched Future Shop, Zellers and Rona, for example.

I would like to ask the member whether or not the government now has at least a perception or thought that consumer, and also market, issues in Canada are part of national security when we actually block Canadians from having competition and also subsequently lose products because we allow these takeovers to take into the market of consumerism.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would have to say that I am elected to represent the riding of Waterloo, and Waterloo is world-renowned for innovations and technologies. The member mentioned Nortel, and I remember very well the impact that had within my community. It is 2023, and I am still carrying a Blackberry to support my local economy and that brainpower. I would like to assure the member that I am confident that this government is always open to amendments. I think we have demonstrated many times that we can work together in the best interest of Canadians. I would like to encourage him to, as he has done in the past, continue working together to find the best way forward, because when our constituents and our country benefit, we all win.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

To understand the significance of our debate on Canada's future prosperity and security, we only needed to look up over the weekend as the Chinese spy balloon floated at 60,000 feet from Alaska over to Canada and into Montana. It was shot down by a few F-22s and plummeted into the Atlantic Ocean by South Carolina, carrying its cameras and equipment. China wants what the West has, and it will go to new heights to get it. It is a sign of the new world.

Just as it is for America and our major trading partners, the future of our country, Canada, is in protecting our sovereignty, our land, farms, natural resources and technological assets in IP while simultaneously attracting foreign investment that benefits Canadians into the country. The Investment Canada Act continues the government's trend of coming late to the party with changes that try to catch Canada up without a serious strategy to advance Canada into the modern era. The result is not just a balloon's bubble bursting over the weekend but the threat of Canada's bubble bursting too if we do not do this the right way.

Conservatives believe that the right way to create paycheques for Canadians is a strategy that encourages made-in-Canada and grown-in-Canada products. This strategy would ensure that our companies, resources and IP stay in Canada, as well as that any investments in Canada benefit Canadians and our people, companies and resources across all our ridings and our regions.

I am sure we are all familiar with the story of The Giving Tree. A boy and a tree were friends, and as he grew up, he would eat the apples and climb on the tree. When he was older, he would ask the tree for its apples to sell for money, and he would take all the fruit away. He would use the branches to build a house and take all the branches away. He would come back later in life to ask for the trunk because the man wanted to build a boat, and the tree gave all that. At the end, the man came back and all that was left was the stump.

Canada has given away large swaths of land and agriculture, fisheries and infrastructure. We have given away a lot of our IP without investing in ourselves. What Canadians are left with is the stump. We have IP leaving the country. Our colleague from Waterloo just spoke about IP. It is missing from this bill. There are alarming statistics about how much of our intellectual property leaves. The University of Waterloo says that 75% of its software engineering grads get pilfered and leave Canada to go to the U.S.

The U.S. has 169 times the IP production of Canada. Canada produces $39 billion of IP, but the U.S. produces $6.6 trillion. We are not developing, protecting or commercializing our IP. We are about to do a study in science and research. We have what is called “the valley of death”. Our intellectual property gets pilfered and comes to belong to someone else, not Canadians.

We have the largest gaps in the world. The OECD has forecasted that Canada will have one of the worst-performing economies in the developed world in the next century. Canada has not been able to keep up with the world when it comes to IP and a knowledge-based economy. Canadian policy is still firmly grounded in industrial-era concepts, and it is failing to develop national strategies for IP and data. China developed 30,000 patents in AI last year alone. Canada has developed fewer than 30,000 patents in all its advancements.

The future of Canada needs to be protected in the airwaves, blockchain, AI, quantum computing, the sky overhead and the Arctic. It needs to be protected in our farms, food-processing plants, genomics, oceans and fisheries, as well as in developing Canadian LNG, which the world wants. Going back to The Giving Tree story, unlike the government, figuratively and literally, the Conservatives would just plant more trees, especially the trees they said they would. The world wants what Canada makes, and we have what the world needs. When we give the world what Canada makes, Canadians make paycheques and Canadians benefit.

This bill has a long way to go. Is it flawed? Yes, it is. Can Conservatives agree to do something with it? Sure we can. Can we create a new pre-closing filing agreement? Sure, that makes sense. Can we have increased penalties for non-compliance? Yes we can, as long as we are calling these companies out. Can we have improved information sharing? Sure we can, as long as we are acting on it. Closed-court proceedings are a red flag. Why do we need to have secretive closed-court proceedings?

One alarming sentence in this bill includes the words secret “evidence”. That is really concerning. New ministerial powers are also a red flag; we have concerns about that. There is no mention of protection for intangible assets, such as intellectual property, which is the backbone of our knowledge-based economy.

This bill does not address or lower the thresholds for national security reviews of state-owned enterprises. This will allow for even further control of our economy by Communist China. This bill does not address dropping the threshold for state-owned or state-controlled enterprises to zero, nor does it address automatic national security reviews of companies based in nations that threaten Canada.

If a company is based in, controlled by or owned by a country that has a heightened need for a national security review, we should review all proposed activity in Canada. We cannot allow control of any critical or strategic sectors to fall into these nations' hands.

The main threat of state-owned industries is from Communist China, which will ruthlessly use its companies to advance its long-term national interests. This was stated at INDU; Professor Balding testified at committee that every year, the Chinese government makes a list of assets for Chinese companies to acquire. If that is not an alarming statement, I am not sure what is.

For example, let us take our critical minerals. China is eating the world's lunch when it comes to critical minerals. China controls 80% of lithium and 66% of cobalt, yet the government is pushing for electric vehicles. It is even mandating that only electric vehicles are to be sold in Canada by 2035. However, it is allowing the sale of critical minerals that are central to those EVs to Chinese state-owned companies.

Last spring, the sale of Neo Lithium was allowed without a security review. This was a Canadian-owned company, and it was sold to China. Many Canadians would be alarmed to know that Canada only has one functioning lithium mine, and it is owned by China. Fossil fuels will be weaponized next along with critical minerals, and members can bet on that.

The member for South Shore—St. Margarets highlighted how state-owned companies are controlling parts of our infrastructure and our critical fisheries industry, including controlling or owning the majority of the Halifax airport.

It does not stop at corporate takeovers. Huawei created 17 research partnerships with Canadian universities. This week it was revealed that taxpayer-funded universities have been partnering with the Chinese National University of Defense Technology for the past five years. That included quantum cryptography, photonics and space science. IP that we were funding with taxpayer dollars went to Chinese military scientists.

Huawei, the Chinese company that makes the tower technology, was banned by U.S. carriers in 2018. It took us until 2022 to follow suit. Why? In 2018, the heads of major U.S. intelligence agencies warned Americans against Huawei. In the U.S., some of the things the FBI uncovered pertained to Chinese-made Huawei equipment atop cellphone towers near U.S. military bases and close to critical infrastructure.

Beijing has been leaning on expatriate Chinese scientists. Lately, we have heard reports of Chinese police stations here in Canada.

This bill would remove oversight and proper security from national security review processes under the Investment Canada Act. We need to look at this open versus closed court process. Why the secrecy? Why do we need to tuck this away? Why can we not have these proceedings in the open?

The bill would give the minister the sole power to create a list of industries which will be subject to automatic national security reviews. We all know what sectors should be protected: health, pharmaceuticals, agrifood and agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, natural resources, IP, innovation, AI and data. The government should commit to protecting those vital sectors.

However, we have no idea what will be on that list with all the power being in the minister's office and having that taken away from cabinet. We saw what happened with Rogers-Shaw and Globalive, and we have certainly seen what has happened with McKinsey.

The future of this country depends on a made-in-Canada strategy that, in some ways, mirrors the Chinese spy balloon that flew over Canada last week, which looked at Canada with bold strategies from a 60,000-foot view.

A Conservative government would focus on growing the economy that provides paycheques to Canadians by focusing on products that are made in Canada and grown in Canada, as well as strategies to ensure our resources, IP, people and talent stay in Canada and are protected.

There is investment and there is theft, and there is no room for theft. We want to encourage investment that brings real benefit to Canadians, including in their paycheques, their savings and their lives. We want to ensure that we have greater prosperity for our region and that this is for Canadians, not just for China.

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, I see the modernization of an act that would provide better transparency.

We have seen a great deal of investment over the years. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry talked about some significant investments in just the last number of weeks. The member referred to the battery industry and its potential growth, as well as how Canada is actually leading many other countries. I believe it is somewhere around number two or three in the world.

There are many investors who want to continue to come to Canada. Could the member reflect on the potential of some of those industries and why it is so important that we modernize the legislation to provide more clarity?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly we want Canada to lead the world not only in battery production but also in battery manufacturing. The problem with Canada, over so many years, is that Canada has become a branch-plant factory. We bring multinational corporations in, and this provides jobs. However, we are certainly not helping Canadian companies develop critical minerals and then manufacture those minerals in Canada.

As I mentioned, Canada has one lithium mine, and it is owned by China. Canada is certainly working on having Volkswagen and other great companies come in here to manufacture, but where are the Canadian companies? How are we helping Canadian companies grow?

The result is that we want GDP per capita, which means paycheques for Canadians, to go up. That means growing Canadian companies, investing in Canadian critical minerals and ensuring that Canada benefits, not solely the rest of the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. He had a lot to say about China, and rightly so, in my opinion. I think we should all be concerned about China's actions and its investments, which do not always comply with our laws.

However, not all investment is from China. Many other countries invest. Under the Investment Canada Act, which is what we are debating today, when a major investment is made in Canada, the minister has to review it and determine whether it is of net benefit to Canada. There are both national security and net benefit to Canada considerations.

In 2021-22, over 1,200 notifications of investment were received, which is a lot. Only eight of those—less than 1%—were reviewed. The government has a rose-coloured view of the situation and is not doing its job.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree 100%. In my speech, I mentioned lowering the thresholds, and we should probably be looking at most investments.

Most importantly, Canada needs to be proactive. We need to look at acquiring and attracting investments. We want investment in Canada. My speech focused on wanting Canadians and Canadian companies to benefit, and they do benefit from international investment. They benefit as long as there is investment in Canadian companies that will grow and stay in Canada and we protect the IP that is here.

Certainly, I agree with the member on lowering thresholds. We should look at almost all investments that come to Canada because we should be in control of those investments. If Canada is going to grow and prosper, we are also attracting investment in Canada. This means that we know where the investments need to go. It means making sure that those Canadian companies, that IP, stays in Canada and that Canadian companies are growing here in Canada.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservatives talk about jobs, trade and supporting Canada is like looking into the distortions of a funhouse mirror.

I remember when Stephen Harper sold off $15 billion of the oil sands to a Chinese state company and when he signed a secretive free trade agreement with China that allowed Chinese state companies to sue any level of government in Canada. The Conservatives stood up and told us this was a great thing. Can members imagine the Americans ever allowing Chinese state companies to sue their states or their municipalities? However, that is what the Conservatives did.

When they talk about supporting Canadian mining, it was Tony Clement who allowed two of Canada's greatest companies, Inco and Falconbridge, to be taken over by corporate raiders. The Conservatives would not stand up for Canadian jobs then. It is a little rich to hear the Conservatives suddenly saying that they are going to stand up to China and they are going to stand up for jobs when Stephen Harper sold us down the river every step of the way in order to favour his friends in the Chinese state companies.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, Stephen Harper left us with one of the best economies this country has ever had. At the end of the day, I will look to the government's success, if we want to compare across the aisle.

The world has changed; 100% the world has changed. When was the last time we saw a balloon flying over the Earth? We want to—

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

We will continue with debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see you back in the chair as well.

I want to start by thanking my constituents for giving me the great privilege of being able to rise in the House to speak on their behalf to the issues they are concerned with these days. To the constituents back home, the debate today is on Bill C-34, which is amendments to, although the government calls it the modernization of, the Investment Canada Act. The specific name given in the bill is the national security review of investments modernization act. For everything that is wonderful, it seems the government will always call it “modernization”.

Maybe I will take a different tack than other members have taken. I find that for every piece of legislation, whether it is Liberal, Conservative or a private member's bill, it is the moment it is tabled and the events that lead up to it that are important. This particular piece of legislation, let us to be serious, is about the People's Republic of China and state-owned investments being made in Canada, whether those are investments that contravene our national security interests or investments that, in the long term, are not in the interest of the Canadian economy or the Canadian worker.

We have seen the experience of other countries all across the world over the last two decades, since the People's Republic of China was allowed to enter the WTO, and that relationship has changed the world economy. I believe this is a response to the behaviours of the government of Beijing over the last two decades.

Madam Speaker, we were in the United Kingdom, in London recently, and we met with individuals who spoke about the general relationships the United Kingdom has. I had the great honour to return to the Palace of Westminster to hear from Alicia Kearns, chair of the foreign affairs committee in the United Kingdom. There was a long meeting held about the British business relationship with the People's Republic of China.

It was fascinating to hear experts in the field describe not only the pros, the cons, and the pitfalls for British businesses having to share their IP and technology, but also the footprint of their businesses and the exchange of workers that go and back. Some of these workers from the different provinces in China would eventually want to stay in the United Kingdom. They would be applying with and leaving to go to competitors. They talked about the long term, and the three stools of relationships, which are government to government, business to business, and people to people, and how all three are incredibly important.

In describing Canada's relationship, as the Canadian government, businesses in Canada and the people of Canada, I think our relationship with Beijing could be defined as broken at the government level, the business level and the people-to-people level.

I have a Yiddish proverb. Members know I really like them.

[Member spoke in Yiddish]

[English]

The proverb means, “The match was a success; they were broke inside of six months.”

Although the timeline is different in this particular situation, over the last six, seven, eight years, we have seen a broken relationship. There was an attempt by the Liberal government to negotiate a memorandum of understanding for a free trade deal with Beijing. That fell apart completely.

We basically had a freezing of the relationship while Canada dealt with the Meng Wanzhou case in Canada, and the Government of China held two of our citizens for no good cause. It was hostage diplomacy. One thing I heard repeatedly when I was in the United Kingdom, shared to me by both lords and ladies, and by members of their Parliament, was that it is also incumbent upon Beijing to watch the language that they use in international diplomacy.

It is not just incumbent upon us to raise issues of human rights, which are incredibly important to the people of Canada, and people in my riding as well, to that business relationship. There is an effect when politicians raise issues of human rights and that has a direct impact on business interest in China. I know in the case of Alberta, we export a lot of agricultural goods. Chinese companies are amazing purchasers of things such as canola, pork, lentils and other products that western farmers love to produce, and it is a great market for agricultural products. I do not represent an agricultural riding, but it has an impact on my riding as well, because many people who live in my riding have family members who continue to farm on their operations.

The events that have led to this today go beyond just the balloon drama that we have had over the last few days, and I know we all like to make jokes about it. We have all had enough puns.

I think the last review for the Investment Canada Act was around 2009, but let us look at the behaviour of the Government of Beijing. Right now, 47 of the most prominent pro-democracy activists, legislators and people who are interested in protecting the civic institutions of the city of Hong Kong, are on trial. The largest trial of democracy activists in Hong Kong's history is being held right now, and it does not look very positive for them. I hope the trial will go their way, but I am not very confident.

We have an amazing relationship with the people and the Government of Taiwan. The senior Taiwanese opposition leader, the vice-chairman of the Kuomintang, or the KMT, Andrew Hsia, is right now leading a delegation to Beijing's office dealing with Taiwan relations. That is happening as we speak.

In the United Kingdom, there is a semiconductor company called IQE, which is the acronym for its name. It happens to be in Wales, and as the Speaker would know, we were in Cardiff as well. The company is informing the government that, because of the delays in reaching a strategy on semiconductors in the United Kingdom, it might move out.

That is not unheard of. It is something that is happening across all western economies right now as businesses are seeking opportunities from foreign investors to help build a plant, finance their operations and manufacture goods. They are having to review where the funding is coming from and what kinds of strings are attached to it. That is what I see in this piece of legislation.

Although different members have mentioned that there are shortcomings, and the member for South Shore—St. Margarets itemized a list of concerns that Conservatives have with this particular piece of legislation, I think there are opportunities. Reuters very recently noted the fact that this Parliament has now called for the resettlement of Uighurs, particularly those who are facing a genocide in China, perpetrated by the Government of Beijing in the Xinjiang region, which will now be resettling them.

That will also have an impact on the business-to-business relationships, because the government in Beijing considers any mention of it, by any parliament or government, as worthy of retribution. Typically, it is business retribution. I am sure that, if I applied today for a business or tourist visa to go to mainland China, I would very likely have it refused, and I accept that.

Bloomberg recently reported that aluminum products that are entering the United States are being detained at the border because they are suspected of being connected to forced labour in the Xinjiang province.

Just last week, the member for Dufferin—Caledon had an Order Paper question come back to him from the Government of Canada saying that it has seized zero products in Canada related to forced labour in one particular province in the People's Republic of China, while the United States' government has been seizing hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods because it has evidence they were produced illegally using forced labour.

Another recent event I will bring up is that President Xi has called for more efforts to accelerate the establishment of a new pattern of development. This has been reported by the Xinhua state news agency. Its focus is on dual circulation, security and self-reliance.

With respect to the piece of legislation we are considering here, and I support sending it to committee to do further reviews, I do not think we should kid ourselves. This is indeed about the People's Republic of China. It is about the Government of Beijing, its behaviour in other countries, and what it might intend to do in Canada or has done in the past.

In the last election, at a minimum, we called for the automatic review of transactions that involved sensitive security sectors, such as defence, artificial intelligence and rare earth minerals. That is what a committee of Parliament should do, review what other sectors or economies should be reviewed. I think that, with respect to all state-owned entities that come from mainland China, we should set the bar at zero. They should automatically be reviewed. I am not worried about state-owned companies from the Republic of France or the Republic of Poland, but I am concerned about the People's Republic of China and its direct control of state-owned companies.

While we have a broken relationship, as I referred to in my Yiddish proverb, there is a relationship that we have brought to this point. That is not entirely the fault of the Canadian government. The Government of Beijing held two of our citizens hostage, and there are consequences to every action. I consider Bill C-34 part of the consequences that must be put on that government for the genocide of the Uighurs; the bad relationship it has developed with our people, our government and our businesses; and lastly, for engaging in hostile diplomacy and holding the two Michaels hostage.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could reflect on the idea and the principle of the importance of having regulations in place to protect the national security of our different industries out there, which is not quite as simple as it was 100 years ago. Today, with technology and everything from microchips to what is grown in the Prairies, there is a need to ensure that we have legislation to provide assurances to investors, and at the same time, protect Canada's economy and well-being.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how businesses differed 100 years ago. Although he is correct on that point, more broadly we have itemized the list on this legislation. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets itemized a few concerns he has with this particular piece of legislation, including things such as automatic reviews of proposed acquisition of company's assets, plants, mines, land, IP and data for the state-owned company involved. Also, what happens if it purchases it, and then breaks up the company to parcel out different components of it. There needs to be that secondary step being taken.

This legislation is on the right path, but it is the details that really matter when reviewing investments that come from overseas, especially when they are from state-owned companies. It may not be in the interest of Canada for a foreign company to come in and purchase one of ours. Even though it may be good for shareholders, at the end of the day, we agree that the national security interests of Canada should predominate when state-owned companies are involved.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Conservative member for his speech evoking his concerns about China. I have to say that I found it very interesting.

I also found his colleagues' speeches interesting. They were somewhat similar. They, too, spoke about China's investments and the fact that we must ensure that we are not indirectly controlled by the Chinese state.

I do have some questions. In his speech and those of his colleagues, I did not hear any mention or concerns about matters of national interest or strategic industries. They did not present a vision for protecting key sectors of the economy, and there was no mention of the need for reviews or monitoring.

It seems to me that China is the Conservatives' only concern. That worries me a little and makes me wonder. Any country in the world could decide to purchase Petro‑Canada, Canadian National or Canadian Pacific. Any country might also decide to buy an oil sands company, which might interest my colleague. If that were to happen, would my colleague have concerns? Does he believe that it is not serious unless it is China? Is that it?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is right in saying that I am concerned about the investments that are being made by big public corporations that are owned and operated by Beijing.

For the past two decades, the People's Republic of China has used businesses that it runs to make investments in other countries, without necessarily caring about the workers in those countries or those countries' future interests.

As I explained in my speech, this bill is a response to Beijing in light of the events that have occurred over the past eight years and the past two decades. I think it is completely acceptable. That is the goal and benefit of the bill.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I have deep concerns when I hear Conservatives talking about human rights in China. The Conservatives signed the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which locked us into an agreement for 31 years, to 2045. In fact, the Hupacasath people in my riding had to go to court to defend their section 35 rights against that very treaty. The Conservatives were not there respecting indigenous rights or protecting their rights, which were under threat when it comes to the environment and the concerns they have around food security and land security, so enough of the past.

With respect to this bill, does my colleague share the concern that this bill would still not provide assurances to indigenous people or consultation to indigenous people? Does he share concerns of how important and significant those are, and how they need to be respected and ensured in this legislation? Enough of just counting on the minister to do the right thing. This needs to be dealt with in the legislation.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, indigenous people in Canada have the highest law on their side. Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, duly passed in this country, forms the very foundation of our state. It gives them the rights that were guaranteed to them by the Crown. They do not need this inserted into this law. They have it directly in the Constitution of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to talk about investments in Canada and the way this government, from day one, has looked at how we can increase Canada's GDP, support Canada's middle class and build a healthier and stronger economy, whether that is by investing in things such as infrastructure, which is something the former prime minister failed at doing, or by taking a look at how we can increase investments coming into Canada, something we have been very successful at doing in the last number of years.

Of course there are the types of opportunities that have been created by a government that has a very proactive approach at dealing with trade in general. Trade also supports the encouragement of additional foreign investment. This government signed off on more free trade agreements than in the history of any other government in the House of Commons. That, in itself, has played a significant role in how Canada is perceived around the world, whether it is Europe, the States, Mexico, Asia or south Asia, wherever it might be.

We have recognized that one way we can elevate the lifestyle and the way we live in Canada is to look at ways to create the types of middle-class jobs that Canadians want. We have been very aggressive in pursuing that along with a number of other things that I will save for another debate on another day.

However, there is misinformation consistently coming from the Conservative Party. I was listening to a previous speaker who was talking down Canada's battery industry. He was saying that we were supporting China and that we could not achieve the production of electric vehicles in Canada. He was literally, and this is no surprise, talking down what was happening in Canada. The problem is that it was not factually correct, and it seems this is an inherent problem that the Conservatives have. They look for things they can say for the spin even if it is true or not.

The member talked about batteries. Does the member realize that when it comes to the battery supply chain, Canada is second in the world? There are a lot of countries throughout the world and we are number two. We should be talking that up, not talking it down as the Conservative member was doing.

In fact, there is a multi-billion dollar investment coming in just outside of Kingston. I know my colleague from Kingston puts a lot of work into expanding that whole region in many different ways, and no doubt he might have even played a role in this. The billions of dollars that are being invested is going to help secure Canada's second place in the world when it comes to batteries.

It is recognizing foreign investment is not a bad thing. Foreign investment is going to help our economy grow. It is going to assist us in creating the types of jobs that Canadians want not only for today but into the future. It is important that the Government of Canada recognizes this by investing in it, not just acknowledging it. We have consistently done that over the years.

On the battery industry, the Kingston-area plant, the billions of dollars of investment, will create 1,000-plus jobs. A global corporation, Umicore, will be working with the Province of Ontario and the federal government. As a direct result, not only will it secure a long-term commitment in an area that will grow over the next many years but it will also create jobs and a cleaner economy, which will have other types of spinoff benefits. In part, it is possible because we recognize there are those who are abroad who look at Canada as a safe place to invest.

Contrary to what my Conservative friends might try to say, relatively speaking and compared to the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well on the investment front. We need to recognize that Canada remains an open economy and, in fact, is the envy of many countries around the world.

One could stick with the automobile industry and the transitions that are taking place. I believe there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million jobs in that industry. In recent years, we have heard about investments from abroad coming to Canada to build upon those jobs, to support that industry, and understandably so, because of the resources we have to offer, because of an amazing workforce and even because of things such as our universal health care system. Companies take those types of things into consideration.

It is not just the bottom line over the next year or two for those many companies. Investors think long term. A greener economy does matter.

That is why investments in green technology by this government, are at historic levels. Stephen Harper never invested a fraction of the types of monies we are investing in a greener economy. As a result of some of those investments, I suspect we will be seeing more international players looking at Canada as a strong, healthy economy that is worth the billions of dollars of investments we will see over the coming years.

Let us think about those industries. My home province of Manitoba is rich in minerals and resources. We require foreign investment in order to maximize the potential that is there.

We have great investors in Canada and we continue to lead in many areas, especially in the agricultural industries and our manufacturing industries. One of the most high-tech airplanes out there, the ones we just purchased, is the F-35. The wings for those are actually manufactured in the city of Winnipeg.

We have industries that we have seen substantial growth. I am always amazed when I take a drive in rural Manitoba during harvest season and see canola being harvested. That comes from the Prairies. It is technology and science at work. At the end of the day, the world is better off as a direct result of Manitoba producing the type of canola it does today.

There was a time when the Prairies was seen as more of a hinterland. We could draw out resources, be paid for them at a reduced price, I would suggest, and forget about the processing. The Prairies wants, demands and has been seeing a diversification of our economies. Never before have we seen as much economic activity in a wide spectrum of areas.

I often talk about how wonderful the hog plant, HyLife, in Neepawa, Manitoba has been to the community because of everything that goes into that plant. Hundreds of employees work there. The life that it has brought to the community of Neepawa is in good part because of that plant and the hundreds of jobs it has generated. Everything that comes out of that plant is exported to Asia.

Investments within Canada as well as external investments are coming into the province of Manitoba, just as I suspect they are into all regions of the country.

From my perspective, the modernization of the Investment Canada Act provides assurances, transparency and a higher sense of accountability. It ensures that the minister is able to protect certain industries, because there is a great deal of concern out there. Two examples come to mind. One is the war taking place in Ukraine and Russia. We have seen the impact that Russia has had on the marketplace, particularly in Europe. It reinforces what the Prime Minister has indicated with respect to looking at our allied countries, countries that share the same values we have, and how we can invest more in that relationship. It becomes more of a two-way street in that sense. Not all foreign investment is good. This is why we need to have this act.

When people think about security and safety, they do not necessarily think of the economy. They might think about the Canadian Forces or our military hardware when it comes to the security of the nation, but what is equally important is the security of our economy. In essence, the Investment Canada Act is there for that. There are players in the world who invest for alternative motives. It is not just about money. We need to give additional attention to some of those players. We often hear about relationships between the different nations. I like to think that if we have learned something from some of the things we have experienced in the past, we could greatly benefit by it.

When I think of our market and our economy, most people want an open market and a free economy where businesses can thrive. Consumers would benefit and we would have a growing and healthy middle class. However, there are some things that really frustrate us as consumers, such as the lack of competition in certain areas of the economy. That has a significant impact.

I think the member for Windsor West from the NDP made reference to Target stores. I remember when Target, a big American company, wanted to invest in Canada. It was going to replace Zellers stores and close some Zellers stores in Winnipeg. It had the big store opening on Saint James Street. Then, after all was said and done, Target pulled out and there was a sense of disappointment. At one point there was a sense of excitement that we were getting this big Target store, and it was fairly well known for its pricing. Consumers felt it would be a good thing, but then Zellers disappeared and Target disappeared. That creates suspicion in the minds of many.

We have, as has been pointed out about grocery stores, some large corporate giants out there, and people are concerned about the price they pay for their food. It is not like there is an option. That is why it is reassuring to Canadians when we have a Minister of Industry who has been very proactive in communicating with these grocery giants and ensuring there is competition.

It is one of the reasons that I and many others will often go to some of the smaller family-owned grocery stores. When Sobeys bought Safeway out west, there was a great deal of concern. In my riding, we had a Sobeys on one side of Keewatin Street and a Safeway on the other side. One store ended up closing, and it is still closed today. Nothing has filled it on the east side of Keewatin Street, but the Safeway has kept that particular name because it had a history in the Tyndall Park area. If we check with the people, we will hear them provide comment that the lack of competition between those two stores might have caused prices to go up.

We could talk about gas prices. We could talk about cellphone prices too. One of the disadvantages that Canada has is the fact that we do not have the same size consumer economy as others do since we are a population of 38 million people. The U.S. has 10 times that and Europe has a multitude of different countries, so as elected officials, we need to be a little more aware of the importance of healthy competition. That is why we talk about what the Minister of Industry has been able to accomplish, whether it is attracting foreign investment or keeping companies that are here more accountable in terms of the pricing put out there. We want Canadians to understand and know that we are here to protect their interests.

That is what this legislation is all about. We recognize the value of foreign investment, and by making it more efficient by allowing ministers to extend deadlines, for example, we are in a better position to protect our marketplace security and work with countries such as the Five Eyes nations.

I will leave it at that, and maybe there will be a question or two.

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

Madam Speaker, I will let the member opposite continue on this line with my question, which has to do with our Five Eyes partners. They clearly said they did not want Huawei to have any access to the 5G networks in Canada, but it took the government two years before it came to that decision. Meanwhile, Bell and Telus implemented Huawei's 4G across the nation.

What mechanisms are present in the bill that the member believes will help us stand better with our Five Eyes partners?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the most important thing within this legislation, from my perspective, is that it would enable more discretion for ministers, whomever they might be. I see that as a positive thing.

The Conservatives seem to believe there should be a listing of industries to which this would be applied. I tend to disagree. I believe that is one of the reasons we have opposition parties. Opposition parties are well positioned to be critical of government if they have a different opinion on investments they believe should have been better tracked, for example. That is why I encourage members to take into consideration that the principles of this legislation and its modernization will ultimately provide a higher sense of national security for Canadians.

With regard to the specific question, I really cannot provide more of a detailed answer than the minister has provided in the past.

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

Madam Speaker, we are used to hearing from the member opposite, but it is nice to know that he is capable of talking about different subjects. We see more and more of that every day.

I listened to his speech and I felt like it was missing a vital component, something that seems to be missing from most of the speeches given by most of the parties here in the House. I am talking about national considerations and the importance that we should be placing on our flagship companies, our local businesses. A company that is established in Quebec or even elsewhere in Canada comes with a head office, decision-makers, and specialized and well-paying jobs. A Canadian- or Quebec-owned business also comes with shareholders who benefit from it. That way, the profits stay here and the strategic elements are there. It is also important that a certain amount of our locally owned companies remain here.

I would like to know whether the member opposite thinks that head offices and locally owned businesses are important. I would like to hear his thoughts on that, because that aspect seemed to be missing from his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member brings up an excellent point, and I will use the specific example of New Flyer Industries, which is now one of the world's best bus manufacturers existing today. I know that Quebec also manufactures buses. New Flyer Industries likely would not be in Manitoba today if not for government getting directly involved.

I think of Dominion Tanners, which has a branch that supplies certain materials to the head office. When that head office goes bankrupt or closes, the subsidiary ends up shutting down. There may be more opportunities to support those types of subsidiaries and companies that are in fact ultimately profitable, but we lose those jobs in part because of what is taking place in another region, whether in Canada or, often, outside of Canada, and because of a decision that has been made that might be evaluated on a different metric than what we would like to see.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I have certainly been in the House to hear a lot of them, and I appreciate the effort he takes to make sure that his voice is heard. As always, I encourage him to allow some of the backbenchers to also have a voice.

Getting to the point, one of the challenges, which the member mentioned in his speech, is that Canadians are feeling less and less trustful. They are very concerned about how assets are moved in this country and how foreign entities are participating.

One thing I have a concern with is a loophole around postclosure notification requirements. We know that things go through a process, but if something happens afterwards, a certain amount of time is given that often allows foreign investors to move sensitive assets out of Canadian businesses before the federal government even becomes aware of them. That really concerns me and the NDP because we want to make sure that the process is clean. If we are going to have foreign investment in this country, there should be accountability at a much higher level, because that is what Canadians need to hear.

I am wondering if the member could speak to that loophole and if there is going to be any effort to support amendments that will fix it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to get to know the minister over the last number of years, and I know the NDP's critic referred to the NDP having a series of amendments. My suggestion to the member and the NDP would be that they sit down with the minister or the minister's staff and share with them what their concerns are to see if in fact some of those perceived or real loopholes can be addressed.

At the end of the day, I like to think that the people coming from abroad to invest in Canada are being watched over, at least in good part, so that Canada is a net beneficiary of that investment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is important legislation. It gives us a chance to talk about the way in which so-called investors in Canada have an impact on our economy.

We saw foreign direct investment take off back in 2006, believe it or not. It was 2006 when Stephen Harper broke his promise that there would never be taxes on investor trusts. That ended up having the effect of causing a lot of foreign takeovers of Canadian companies. Then investment trusts got taxed and a lot of Canadian investors lost out. A lot of them still remember that change in election promise.

I mention that because when we speak of investors, quite often they are mercenary. They are coming in and buying up Canadian companies when they get the chance, and what they increasingly bring to Canada are security threats. That is in relation to the takeover of many Canadian enterprises by companies controlled by the People's Republic of China. They are protected by another move in the Harper era: the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with the People's Republic of China. It did not expand to trade for Canada into China. It just protected Chinese investors in Canada from regulations they would not like.

All of that is to say that this is important legislation, but does the parliamentary secretary not think it is time to think about more investment by Canadians in Canadian enterprises and not being so very welcoming to foreign investors?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Canada has billions of dollars' worth of foreign investment coming into the country, and the member would know full well that billions of dollars leave Canada to be invested around the world. I would like to think that given the billions of dollars leaving the country, maybe we could revisit the issue and look at investing here in Canada.

At the end of the day, I truly believe that we need to modernize legislation, which the minister proposed in Bill C-34. It should allow for not only more investment but a healthier system. A healthier system that provides more stability not only would attract more foreign investment, but would, I would like to think, keep a lot of the dollars already in Canada invested in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I noted that during his speech, the member talked about the security of our economy. Right now, under the legislation, foreign investment review is triggered only when the assets of a Canadian corporation are at least $454 million.

I wonder if the member would agree that, given the nature of security threats and foreign acquisitions by hostile governments, it would be better to have that threshold at zero dollars.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, again, if there are ideas from members of the opposition, or even from government members, to improve the legislation, I would really encourage them not to sit on them but let the ministry know about it. This always helps us out, even prior to going to committee. Most importantly, hopefully the legislation will pass relatively quickly so that we can at least get it into law before the end of the year.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent.

I rise today to address Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. Bill C-34 is an attempt to update and strengthen the Investment Canada Act through seven significant amendments. Mainly, these changes to the act aim to protect Canada's national security with stricter regulations and higher penalties.

The main tenets of the bill attempt to introduce a pre-implementation filing requirement for specified investments. It would streamline the minister's ability to investigate national security reviews of investments and strengthen penalties for offenders. It would create regulatory power to generate a list of national security industries where automatic proposed acquisitions would be reviewed for national security harm, and it would provide ministerial authority to impose interim conditions and accept mitigation undertakings.

The bill would remove the Governor in Council, replacing it with the minister in making an order for further national security review, and involve the Governor in Council in the results of the national security review only if the investment is found, after investigation, to be injurious to national security. It supposedly would improve coordination with international partners and strengthen rules for the protection of information in judicial review proceedings.

In essence, this bill would give the Minister of Industry more time and authority to assess foreign transactions that might compromise national security, by removing the Governor in Council from the initial process while also making more severe the penalties for violating the Investment Canada Act. This, on its face, is beneficial and necessary, but there are several gaps that need to be addressed, which I will outline later.

Threats to our national security and sovereignty come in a dizzying array with regard to scope and creativity. Today, I want to focus on threats to our national security via our economy by investment from actors with malicious intent. There is just cause to update and strengthen the Investment Canada Act to prevent such threats or, at the very least, reduce the number of threatening actions made to Canada's economy and national security via investment. There exists a scary number of examples wherein Canada's national security was jeopardized due to a lack of due diligence on behalf of the industry minister with regard to foreign direct investment.

The industry minister's 2021 mandate letter directed the minister to do the following:

Contribute to broader efforts to promote economic security and combat foreign interference by reviewing and modernizing the Investment Canada Act to strengthen the national security review process and better identify and mitigate...security threats from foreign investment.

The keywords here are “better identify and mitigate...security threats”. There is ample evidence to show why the Prime Minister so directed the industry minister, as the Liberal record on allowing bad actors to invest in Canadian companies, and therefore our intellectual property and data, is rather horrifying.

In 2017, the Minister of Industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of a B.C.-based telecommunications company, Norsat International, and its subsidiary, Sinclair Technologies, by China-based Hytera Communications, which is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government owns about 10% of Hytera Communications through an investment fund.

The United States, our largest and most important trading partner, blacklisted Hytera in 2021. Its Federal Communications Commission stated that the company “pose[s] an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons”. Sales and import of Hytera equipment are banned in the U.S. as a result, and our industry minister let this company, with its ties to the Chinese ruling Communist Party, buy a Canadian company.

It gets better, or should I say, it gets worse. Hytera Communications is also facing 21 charges in an American espionage case. The United States Department of Justice is accusing the firm of conspiring to steal trade secrets from Motorola. We know this tactic has been used before by the Chinese government, and yet our industry minister okayed a sale of a Canadian company right to it.

In 2019, Manitoba-based Tantalum Mining Corp. of Canada Limited, also known as Tanco, was purchased by the Chinese company Sinomine Resources. The purchase was approved by the Liberals with no national security review. The mine produces lithium and more than 65% of the world's cesium, which is used in drilling applications, as well as Canada's largest deposit of tantalum, which is used in electronics.

Sinomine was recently ordered by the government, in November, to divest itself of its investment in Power Metals Corp, a different mining exploration firm in Vancouver, but the government was apparently totally fine with its continued ownership of the Tanco mine and its critical minerals operations, as its divestment order said nothing about it.

In 2020, our Department of Global Affairs awarded a $6.8-million contract to state-owned, China-based Nuctech, which was founded by the son of the former Chinese Communist Party secretary general. That is $6.8 million of Canadian taxpayer money basically going directly into the Chinese Communist Party's pockets, along with precious data.

As John Ivison wrote for the National Post in 2020, “Nuctech is known as the 'Huawei of airport security'”. The contract was to supply security equipment for 170 Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions around the globe. A security industry source told Ivison for the story that he was concerned there were now “significant pieces of Chinese technology sitting in every embassy” and that the contract included delivery, installation, operator training and software.

For the same article, Guy Saint-Jacques, a former Canadian ambassador in Beijing, explained that the Chinese business strategy overseas is to win market share and, once dominant, dictate prices, illustrating that not only are there security concerns with these problematic investments, but there are also long-term economic implications. We cannot continue to let China and other actors with malicious intent interfere with Canada's economy and national security, even if they do offer the lowest prices for the service.

That said, the pattern of allowing risky investments without full security reviews continues. It was apparently briefly acknowledged in 2021, with the industry minister updating and enhancing guidelines for national security reviews of transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises in March of that year. However, 2022 saw a number of lapses, even with this enhanced protocol.

In January 2022, the minister failed to follow his own updated guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of the Canadian lithium company Neo Lithium Corp. by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining, again, without a national security review.

Wesley Wark, a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in international affairs and intelligence gathering, told the industry and technology committee, while studying the takeover after the fact, that it was a mistake. The value of the transaction was close to a billion dollars.

Then, in November 2022, the minister ordered three Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three critical minerals firms, but Neo Lithium was not included.

In December 2022, possibly the worst offence, the RCMP awarded a contract to supply sensitive hardware for its communications systems to Sinclair Technologies, which, members will recall, was sold to Hytera Communications, the Chinese company partially owned by the Communist Party and blacklisted in the U.S.

It was also revealed in December of that year that the Canada Border Services Agency has been using communications equipment and technology from Hytera. A CBC story says that Public Services and Procurement Canada did not take into consideration the security concerns about Sinclair and its ownership during the bidding process. The difference between that and Quebec-based Comprod's offer was $60,000. The Liberals love to hand out money left and right, but they could not spend $60,000 to keep our security hardware domestically sourced and provide Canadians with jobs while we are at it.

As we can see, the bill is sorely needed, but there are a few areas for improvement within the bill itself.

I do not like the part that gets rid of the Governor in Council approval and gives power just to the minister. I think that should be fixed. The legislation should also consider updating the act's definition of a state-owned enterprise, which is now too vague. There is no provision to block any subsequent takeover by a state-owned enterprise of a previous Investment Canada Act-approved acquisition.

It is my hope that the government learns from its mistakes, listens to the opposition parties and experts, and gets this legislation right. We cannot keep selling off parts of our economy, national security and precious resources to bad actors.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I loved the last line about learning from mistakes. This is the same Conservative Party that, when there was warning after warning about Chinese state companies stealing IP from Canadian companies, Stephen Harper was selling off key assets, like $15 billion for Nexen to a state-owned company.

When HD Mining in British Columbia, a Chinese company, announced it could not hire Canadian workers, Stephen Harper gave it 14 years to bring in Chinese workers to exploit Canadian assets. Stephen Harper thought that was so good that he signed a secret free trade deal that allowed Chinese state companies to sue any level of government. Imagine the United States letting Montana or Miami be sued.

Stephen Harper was more than willing to sell us down the river, sell out our assets and sell out our resources, while we warned them about the theft of IP and resources by Chinese state companies.

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

Madam Speaker, I see the outrage in the member opposite, but perhaps he could apply that to the party that he is supporting, the party that sold out health care in B.C. to Anbang. Does the member remember that? It was a total disaster. We had to come in and rescue them in the pandemic.

Huawei is another example, where the government sat on its decision for two years and let Huawei build all the 4G networks under Bell and Telus in this country.

Why does the member not take his outrage and apply it to the government that he is propping up?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member has identified some areas that she suddenly feels need to be addressed. I am curious if she could tell the House how many times, because we are in fact only amending a piece of legislation here, she has raised her concerns with the minister before today, specifically about how the legislation should be changed.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question, actually. Members may recall I was on my feet in this House criticizing Navdeep Bains when he was the industry minister who did Anbang. I have been on my feet in this House criticizing every time one of these things has come along and calling it out, because of the danger and the breach of our privacy and the fact that they are allowing the Chinese Communist government to put security systems, information systems and software into Parliament, embassies, etc.

It is outrageous. It needs to get fixed. I have been calling for this now for eight long years.

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

Madam Speaker, I share the concerns of my Conservative colleague about Chinese investments, which are not always wise, and about the lax approach and lack of verification by this government.

I want to take this opportunity to mention that a Chinese spy was recently arrested at Hydro‑Québec facilities. We often hear the Liberals brag about the fact that they are working hard for the electrification of transportation. We are not seeing many results, but they love to talk about it. In fact, this Chinese expert was in the offices of IREQ, Hydro-Québec’s research institute, which is in my riding. He took photos and gathered information on our research into the electrification of transportation to send to the Chinese government. It takes some nerve.

All of that leads me to my question about Bill C‑34. At the time, in 2015, when I was elected for the first time, foreign investment notifications would have been sent to the government. According to government data, 10% of foreign investments were analyzed by the government in 2015.

The most recent data indicates that only 1% of investments are being analyzed. What does my colleague think of that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for the question.

There are indeed many examples of security problems where we can see that organizations have harmed Canada.

I think that the government is not paying close attention to agreements. We are going to fix that through Bill C‑34, however.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, and especially pleased to speak after my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.

We are here to discuss a bill that relates to national security, the trade relations Canada must engage in with other countries and the possibility of investors from other countries buying Canadian companies.

Let me make one thing clear right off the bat. China is going to come up a lot during this debate and in my speech. However, there is a big difference between the people who live in China, Canadians of Chinese origin and China's Communist government. These are completely different things, and anything negative we say about China's outsized ambitions relates to Communist China, not to individuals and certainly not to Canadians of Chinese origin.

This is about international trade. We welcome everyone who wants to invest here because we also want Canadians to be welcome in other countries. We are a free trade nation. Canada has more free trade agreements than any other country—over 40 in total.

Following an election in 1988, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was mandated by the people to sign the free trade agreement with the United States. The famous agreement between “the three amigos”, the United States, Canada and Mexico, followed a few years later.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague from Abbotsford, who has been the architect of literally dozens and dozens of our free trade agreements with other countries. The member for Abbotsford was the minister of international trade for over six years. He was the longest-serving minister of international trade in the history of this country, and thank goodness for that, because we have great relationships with Asia, Europe and the Americas. That is the legacy of the member for Abbotsford.

As members will recall, when this government was elected in 2015, it shelved a few agreements, only to eventually renew them on the cheap, which is too bad. Still, Canada today is the land of free trade.

No one can claim to support free trade and say that Canada should go abroad but that our doors here in Canada should be closed. The doors must be closed in an intelligent way. That is why we have a number of concerns about this bill, which is essentially about tightening up security measures when it comes to national security reviews of foreign investments.

This bill basically provides for seven important changes to improve the national security review process for foreign investments. It also seeks to give the minister a lot more authority in certain circumstances.

The Conservatives do not disagree with the principle. However, as with anything, the devil is in the details, and that is where we need to do our job as parliamentarians. In principle, we agree that we need to revise the national security review process for foreign investments, but Bill C‑34 is seriously flawed, and we are going to talk about those flaws.

First, let us remember that the government's track record on foreign investments from China over the past seven or eight years is poor and fails to live up to expectations. In the early 21st century, China was not under the harmful influence and control of the current Chinese government. However, the situation has deteriorated since then and we are now paying the price.

In 2017, the industry minister did not ask for a full national security review prior to the acquisition of Norsat International, a communications company based in British Columbia, and its subsidiary, Sinclair Technologies, by Hytera Communications, a Chinese company belonging in part to the People's Republic of China.

In 2020, the Minister of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to a Chinese firm, Nuctech, which was founded by the son of a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 Canadian embassies. In a national security review, that checks off all the boxes. We are talking about X-ray equipment in our embassies and a contract was given to a company founded by the son of a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party.

In January 2022, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did not follow his own guidelines when he expedited the purchase of the Canadian company Neo Lithium Corporation by the Chinese state-owned company Zijin Mining without a national security review.

Much of the automotive industry is going electric. Private companies around the world, manufacturers, are investing $500 billion in this shift. Electric cars require lithium. Canada has lithium. Now, however, the government has decided to let a Chinese company take over this natural resource that is essential for economic development in the 21st century. That is a huge loss.

I want to talk about another company that was mentioned earlier: Hytera Communications. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a sensitive contract for communications systems hardware to Sinclair Technologies, which used to be a Canadian company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International. Norsat International was founded and based in Richmond but was acquired by Hytera Communications.

That is where things stand today after all these years of Liberal governance. Whether it is lithium, X-ray machines in our embassies, or security equipment for the RCMP, critical items are being funded by investors from China, a Communist country, need I remind the House.

There is a big difference between Communist China, Chinese people and Chinese Canadians. Shame on anyone who makes a connection between those elements; there is none. It is the Chinese government that is to blame.

Let us talk about Hytera Communications, which belongs to the People's Republic of China and is a major supplier to China's national security department. In December 2022, we learned that the Canada Border Services Agency used Hytera's communications technology equipment in 2017. Let us remember that Hytera is facing 21 espionage-related charges in the United States and was banned by President Biden himself. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Pressure has mounted in recent years as companies tied to the Chinese communist regime have strengthened their positions here in Canada. The government has been slow to act on that, which is why it introduced Bill C‑34.

Essentially, Bill C‑34 gives the minister more powers, but the minister needs more still. Here are some ideas we are going to put forward during the committee's clause-by-clause study to improve this bill. First, all acquisitions subject to a net benefit review or a national security review must get cabinet approval regardless of the outcome of the investigation.

The bill also does not provide for the preparation of a list of autocratic countries that are banned from having Canadian companies or assets. I am talking here about China and Russia. The bill also does not include a net benefit test, or a measure of attempts to take control of key industries through acquisitions under the investment thresholds. Finally, the bill does not make any changes to the legal definition of a state-owned enterprise, which some consider to be too vague.

Let me be clear. We are in favour of free trade. Free trade means trade with other countries. That means that we can invest in other countries and other countries can invest here. Let me be clear, when it comes to China and the Communist Party that is currently in power there, we need to be incredibly vigilant. We need to recognize that they are not our natural friends.

We therefore need to enhance security measures to prevent mistakes, such as a lithium company ending up in the hands of the Chinese government, Chinese-controlled X-ray equipment in our embassies, and RCMP communications ending up in the hands of the Chinese government, from ever happening again.

Limits must be set, and that is what we want to do by improving this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent on his excellent speech. It was quite interesting and very intellectually stimulating. It is a pleasure to listen to that kind of speech.

I would like to go back to the issue of the net benefit analysis. I think my colleague mentioned this in his speech. In the Investment Canada Act, there is a review threshold that seems to go up almost like clockwork each year, sometimes even faster than inflation.

For example, in 2015, the review threshold was $369 million. If we look at this year's figures, we see that the review threshold for countries with which we do not have an economic agreement, to use the lowest figure, hit $1.3 billion. This means that the government does not even look at the file when a company is purchased for less than $1.3 billion. These transactions are just rubber-stamped.

Let me name a few companies that are in this situation. Héroux-Devtek has a market value of $560 million. Lassonde Industries has a market value of $800 million, which means it still passes under the radar. Cascades has a market value of $909 million, and TC Transcontinental has a market value of $1.3 billion, which puts it right on the edge of passing under the radar. No one knows for sure. Resolute Forest Products, which has a market value of $1.6 billion, would fall below the second threshold, which is $1.9 billion for countries with which there is a trade agreement.

I would like to know if my colleague from Louis-Hébert thinks it is acceptable that the thresholds are so high, and that companies that are so important to our economy are not even subject to a review in the event of an acquisition.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague. However, he made a little mistake in his question: I am the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, not for Louis‑Hébert. The member for Louis‑Hébert is seated over there. We know that because over the weekend he said on Quebec television that he was in the corner over there with the leader of the Green Party. I will leave it at that.

I thank my colleague for very clearly demonstrating that we must always be vigilant and that when we increase the threshold for review so much, we are exposing ourselves to risk. That is where we need to pay attention. I completely understand.

I will play fair. The situation changed dramatically from 2015 to 2023. Oversight of China in 2015 may not have been very strong and that was understandable. These days that is no longer possible. We need to be vigilant and take this seriously.

As my colleague from the Bloc Québécois demonstrated so well, the bar is currently set too low. We have to set it higher. I also want to thank my colleague for highlighting the problem that came up at Hydro‑Québec.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent for his speech. Let us remember constituency names. It is important.

My colleague made some good points, but he did not talk about the major changes that Bill C-34 will make, including the new definitions involving businesses.

Does my colleague think this bill contains improvements or not?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, of course. The mere fact that legislation is being introduced to address this issue is a step forward. Increasing oversight of foreign investments with respect to national security, specifically those from communist China, is a good thing.

However, this step forward does not go far enough. We need to make our experts even more effective. Cabinet and the minister responsible will indeed have a little more power. However, we have sadly been able to demonstrate, as have several colleagues, that over the past four or five years, there have been shortcomings in this regard. We must therefore better equip our intelligence services and our police services, those who ensure our security on a national and international level.

In our view, this bill does not go far enough. Fortunately, we will be able to improve it when it is studied in parliamentary committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today. With whom, I am not exactly sure yet, but it will happen after QP that somebody will come in and take the other half of my speaking time.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-34. This is an important piece of legislation to ensure we continue to keep up with the evolving global economy. We know there are a lot of great opportunities that Canada has been able to seize over the last number of years, and I will speak to one in particular in my riding in a few moments.

This legislation is there to enable the minister, whomever that may be, to ensure they can put the proper measures in place and take the proper approaches to not only maintain Canada's national security, but also enhance our economic security. The two absolutely need to go hand in hand.

A piece of this legislation I was particularly interested in was giving the minister the ability to improve information sharing with international allies. Having the ability to share information back and forth with our allies, with regard to various economic opportunities and various international companies, certainly will give us some ability to protect that security. We know economic security and national security go hand in hand, and they absolutely need to.

This particular piece of legislation, the Investment Canada Act, was established to provide investor certainty while reserving Canada's ability to block individual investments under specific circumstances. It is key to mention that, because it is not just about the security of our own nation or the security of Canada. When we talk about investing, we also want to make sure the rules are absolutely clear so that those who seek to invest in Canada know exactly what to expect. That is why this legislation is so important and why it is important to continually update it. The last time it was done, I believe, was in 2009. Now we are seeing it happen again as a result of changes in the global economy.

One investment opportunity coming to just outside my riding in Hastings—Lennox and Addington, which a Conservative member represents and I know she is very excited about, is a new opportunity that was announced last summer. It is with respect to a German-based company with ties throughout Europe, not just Germany, that invests in battery manufacturing. This company has chosen just outside of my riding, in her riding, a particular location in Ontario to establish what will become the largest battery manufacturing plant for electric vehicles in North America.

It is amazing because this company has chosen Ontario. I will tell the House why it chose Ontario. When it was looking at the various options, it basically shortlisted them down to three cities. I will not name the two other cities, but they were both in the United States. The reason Ontario was chosen was because of the company's ability to access clean energy. When the company is producing electric vehicle batteries, it takes a lot of electricity to run that process.

That company made it very clear in its press announcement that it wanted to know, when it is making a sustainable product, which is electric vehicle batteries, that the inputs into that product are sustainable themselves. The company knew Ontario, because of a former Liberal government, no longer burns coal. Ontario has one of the cleanest electric grids. I know the Speaker is from Quebec, and we can have a debate about this later on, but as a result that company chose Ontario because of access to clean energy.

I think it is very telling that the move toward sustainability is no longer just a movement that is driven by individuals and political leaders with these aspirations and ideas. We are now starting to see it built into corporate decisions. We are seeing these large multi-billion dollar companies, seeking to invest in other parts of the world, making the decisions and saying they want to know that they are using sustainable products to create their end product.

Umicore chose to set up in Hastings—Lennox and Addington just outside of Kingston. It will be investing, I believe, around $5 billion. The Government of Canada is also adding to that investment to establish this battery manufacturing plant. It will take the raw materials right to the end product that will be delivered to the car manufacturers.

There is a lot to be said about these types of deals, especially as we have been moving and transitioning into this new green, sustainable economy over the past number of years. It is critically important that, as we look for other countries and companies in other countries to do business with, the rules about investing in Canada are very clear. Companies like Umicore that want to invest billions of dollars in Canada want to know what the rules are and what they should expect from the government. I think that is fair, but we also have to have the ability to control our own national security by making sure that we make the right moves at the right time when it might not be in the best interest of Canada.

Ultimately, that is what Bill C-34 does. It puts us in a position where the minister, whomever that might be, whether it is the current minister or a future minister under a different government, is given the tools that are needed to make those decisions on behalf of Canadians.

There have been some comments in the House today about extending too much responsibility or giving too much power, perhaps, to a minister to make those decisions. However, it is important to remember that we elect people and put them in positions so they are able to make those decisions on behalf of Canadians. Sometimes those decisions have to be made relatively quickly. Therefore, empowering them with the tools to do this, so that they can continue to work on deals and make deals with companies like Umicore, which will be coming to my region, is incredibly important.

It goes without saying that I support this legislation. Every member in the House should support this legislation. I recognize, as the member for Louis-Hébert said before me, that he does have some concerns that he wants to raise at committee during the clause-by-clause process. That is important. It is part of the democratic process. Perhaps our bill could even be improved further by his contribution and the contribution of all members. I genuinely hope that all members will come to it with that understanding.

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

I want to interrupt the hon. member to ask everybody to please calm down.

We are trying to listen to a speech, but the noise level is becoming increasingly disruptive.

The hon. member has one minute and a half left.

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

Madam Speaker, I was just wrapping up. I am happy to take some questions now before question period.

However, I am pleased to support this legislation. I hope that all parties can work constructively together at committee to improve the legislation so that we can offer the best, on behalf of Canada, to other international companies seeking to invest here.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Kingston and the Islands' speech. In my opening speech on this I said that these micro-administrative changes are much needed, but they are likely not to do what is claimed. The government has had the opportunity, over the last eight years, in the existing act, to reject takeovers by Chinese state-owned enterprises of Canadian assets. These include the Tanco mine in Manitoba where the government actually said no to a national security review, and Hytera, which took over telecommunications businesses. The then minister of industry said no to a national security review.

Can this member please tell me what in this bill will ensure that those types of acquisitions by state-owned enterprises are reviewed in the future?

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

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the question. The premise of the question, when we start off by saying that there are micro pieces of amendments to the legislation that will not do what they are intended to do, perhaps does not start us off on the right foot of the collaborative approach of trying to make the bill better.

The member specifically raised a point about state-owned purchases like the ones he is referencing, and I have heard a couple of other members raise this too. I think there is an opportunity to discuss that in committee. The member for Louis-Hébert raised the exact same point in his speech, prior to me speaking, that the Conservatives would like to dig into it a little deeper and to find out if there is a way the legislation can be improved even more to address that concern.

I hope the member brings it forward and the committee is able to satisfy the concerns of the Conservatives as it relates to that particular issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my Liberal colleague. He said that it was important to give the minister more powers to review foreign investments. I concur. More powers and further review are necessary, but I wonder what the government is doing with this power once acquired.

I clearly remember a case, in 2016, because it happened in my riding. Rona, a very important Quebec-based chain, was sold for $3.2 billon. We filed an access to information request to determine the rationale for the government's review under the Investment Canada Act. There were no documents, no studies, nothing.

Can the member opposite explain why the government, which wants new powers, is not using the powers it has and is not fulfilling its role when it reviews potential investments?

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

Madam Speaker, again, if we start off by assuming that the minister is looking for more powers, only to be extremely critical as to how those were used previously, we might not be starting off on the right foot, if we are genuinely interested in amending this legislation in the better interest of Canadians.

Similar to my comment to the Conservative member who asked me a question, I would say to the member from the Bloc that if he is concerned about what exactly the minister will be able to accomplish with these legislative changes, then he should bring that up in committee so it can be discussed. At the end of the day, let us remember that we will all be better off by having a better ability to negotiate and a better ability to scrutinize the various corporations, stakeholders and entities that are seeking to invest in Canada, if we work together to create the best legislation.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts in regard to the announcement with respect to the battery plant in the Kingston area.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, first I just want to take the opportunity to welcome Duncan Vendetti to Parliament Hill today. Duncan is a grade 6 student from Our Lady of Lourdes school in Kingston. There is no doubt, mark my words, that he will one day be sitting in the House. I am sure he will be on this side of the aisle, but the good news for my Conservative colleagues is that I am sure they will get along much better with Duncan than they do with me.

In terms of the battery manufacturing plant, this is a great example of how this piece of legislation would lend itself to the minister's being able to establish and bring new relationships to Canada, just like he has done by bringing to Canada the Umicore project, which will set up the largest electric-vehicle battery manufacturing plant in North America right outside of my riding in Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport in support of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

The Investment Canada Act, for those who may not know, is designed to encourage investment, economic growth and employment in Canada. It is a very important act for our federal government, because as we continue to try to create a stronger culture of innovation in Canada, as our economy moves increasingly from tangible to intangible or non-physical assets, as intellectual property becomes more important, and as we work to define the freedom to operate rules in Canada, acts like the Investment Canada Act are very important.

It is also an act that provides mechanisms to review foreign investments in Canada to ensure that foreign investment is a net benefit to Canada and does not harm national security. The rules in the act are established to provide investor certainty while giving Canada the ability to block individual investments under specific circumstances. This act is critical to ensuring a prosperous economic future for Canada and to guiding the right type of investments in our country.

Let us review some of the key changes to the Investment Canada Act that are being proposed by Bill C-34. It is not first time we have made changes to this act, but it is probably the largest set of amendments we have proposed since 2009.

The first thing the bill would do is to introduce a preimplementation filing requirement for specific investments. This would give the Canadian government more tools to review any proposed investments in sensitive business sectors.

It would also give authority to our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, in consultation with our Minister of Public Safety, to order further national security reviews of investments.

It would update penalties to strengthen deterrence of any behaviours we may not want.

It would introduce the authority for the Minister of Industry, again in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on an investment to reduce the risk of national security injury taking place during the course of the review itself, such as through the possible transfer of assets, intellectual property or trade secrets before the review is complete.

The bill would provide greater flexibility in mitigating national security risks by allowing the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, in collaboration with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose binding undertakings on investors. These undertakings would have to demonstrate that they adequately mitigate the national security risk that would arise from the investment in question.

Finally, the bill would allow Canada to share case-specific information with international counterparts to help protect common security interests.

The Investment Canada Act not only sets out the rules that would encourage more investment and trade in Canada, but also includes a number of measures that would serve to protect any foreign-made investments in Canada as well.

The economy is changing, the global trade and investment environment is changing, and so must our rules, legislation and regulations change. This would ensure that Canada is able to attract the best foreign investments and trade that would encourage economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada while also protecting Canada's national security and interests as they relate to trade and foreign investments.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has updated the Investment Canada Act. He has done so at least three times in the last couple of years. The first time, in March 2021, he updated the national security guidelines in light of the then-evolving national security concerns to include investments involving sensitive personal data, sensitive technologies and critical minerals, as well as investments by state-owned or state-influenced investors.

The second time, we adjusted our federal government act to begin in February 2022, when Russia began its unprovoked and illegal attacks against Ukraine, creating an environment of heightened national security and economic risk. At that time, we put out a policy advising clearly that any investment with ties to Russia would only be found to be of net benefit to Canada on an exceptional basis. Moreover, any foreign investments with ties to the Russian state would also be viewed as potentially harmful to Canada's national security.

Finally, the third time we updated the Investment Canada Act was when the federal government announced a new policy related to foreign investment in Canadian critical mineral sectors. The policy advised that any investment in the critical mineral sector by state-influenced investors would only be approved as being a net benefit to Canada on an exceptional basis. Then we took quick action to block transactions that would be injurious to Canada's national security, and the government ordered the divestiture of investments by three foreign companies in Canadian critical mineral companies.

This announcement was a change in procedure, and it is also part of our efforts to modernize and improve the administration of Canada's investment review regime. Despite previously having the authority to announce decisions of this nature, the Government of Canada had traditionally not done so.

Again, it is not the first time updating the Investment Canada Act. Indeed, this bill is the latest in a series of actions our government has taken to ensure that we have the right tools and flexibility to protect Canada's national security interests. In turn, I believe that this would ensure an investment climate in Canada that is positive for economic growth both now and in the future.

Let me take a moment to relay some of the great investments we have already made in the area of innovation, science and technology with an eye to the future. For me, these are the types of investments that absolutely set Canada up for success both now and in the future.

In late January, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced an investment of $100 million through the strategic—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On a point of order, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is about foreign direct investment in Canada. It is not about providing subsidies to foreign companies to operate battery plants. I would ask the member if she would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that there is some latitude during speeches. I am sure that the hon. member will come back to the original bill that is before the House.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was highlighting some of the great investments we have already made, which are innovative and very much set Canada and Canadians up for success.

At the end of January, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced an investment of $100 million through the strategic innovation fund to support Saskatchewan's BHP's $7.5-billion project to develop its world-leading, low-emissions potash fund. To me, this innovation is one of the many investments we are making that are going to help make sure we will be reaching our net-zero targets by 2050.

In mid-January, our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced the launch of Canada's national quantum strategy, which will shape the future of quantum technologies in Canada and help create thousands of jobs. It is an investment of $360 million, and the strategy will amplify Canada's existing quantum research and grow quantum technologies, companies and talent.

Here are another couple of other things I am really proud that we have done.

Our Minister of Innovation has also signed MOUs with Volkswagen to investigate opportunities for Canada to contribute to Volkswagen's global and regional battery supply chains, which will be of mutual benefit to both of our countries and will advance our respective EV and energy agendas. Another great MOU I want to point out is the one we signed with Mercedes-Benz to look at opportunities to promote co-operation and to explore ways to advance opportunities across Canada's electric vehicle supply chain, including, but not limited to, securing sustainable sources of raw materials moving forward.

I will mention one more thing I am very proud of.

In 2019, we set up the innovation asset collective, which is a $30-million pilot that very much helps Canadian clean-tech companies harness the power of IP to maximize the value of their intangible assets and set the stage—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

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

Madam Speaker, I hate to have to do this, but in the time since you ruled on the previous point of order, we have not had any connection yet to the bill.

Perhaps, through you, Madam Speaker, we could remind the member to tie this to the bill, because we are actually talking about Bill C-34 and not a laundry list of funding announcements by the government that have nothing to do with the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, there is a bit of latitude, but the hon. member is correct. I would remind those who are giving speeches today and speaking on this that they should be referencing the bill and maybe mentioning the bill during their allocations.

The hon. member for Davenport has 30 seconds to continue.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought I had a minute left, but I just want to say to everyone who stood on a point of order that I very much outlined exactly what the bill is meant to do, why it is important to be part of the Investment Canada Act and why it is so important for both current and future economic success for Canada.

As we create a culture around intellectual property, as we work to translate inventions and innovation, as we work to educate and protect IP generated from R and D investment, and as we continue to encourage and need foreign investment and trade in Canada, it is important to modernize our Investment Canada Act for the good of our economy, for jobs, for current and future prosperity and to protect our national security interests.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

Madam Speaker, the first half of the member's speech was a bit about this bill. The last half, obviously, was not.

She is a member of the government, and in 2017, it sent a letter to a company in B.C. that said it is okay to be bought by a state-owned enterprise from China. The former minister of industry said that. The company in China was called Hytera. In 2019, the government did not even do a national security review of this, nor of the acquisition of our only lithium mine, Tanco, in Manitoba.

Can the member enlighten this House, with her extensive reading of the bill, by telling us which clause in the bill will stop that from happening in the future?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 Victoria, Climate Change; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Health; and the hon. member for Nunavut, Indigenous Affairs.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the changes that are being proposed to the Investment Canada Act would provide more flexibility and agility for our minister to make these types of decisions in the future. My understanding is that he is always advised by our national security advisers. We will always take direction from those who provide us advice.

There is a reason we are here: We are constantly modernizing our act to make sure that the national security interests of Canada continue to be protected.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her interesting speech. What is unfortunate is that there is a major problem in Bill C‑34. I do not understand why the government has not addressed it.

It had the opportunity to modernize the Investment Canada Act. It addressed national security. That is a good thing. However, there is another aspect, the net benefit review, which has an extremely high threshold. At this time, the threshold for the review of an investment is between $1.3 billion and $9 billion.

Does my colleague not find this threshold to be too high, and that it makes no sense to not examine investments that fall below that very high threshold?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Investment Canada Act provides for net benefit and national security reviews of foreign investments in Canada. We have proposed a number of changes in this particular act. Assuming the bill passes second reading in the House and goes to committee, there will be many opportunities to consider amendments that might strengthen it.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns the NDP and I have about this bill is that we should be looking more closely at transactions where a company is being taken over by a state-owned enterprise. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets mentioned Chinese investments. In British Columbia, we had a case where Anbang Insurance bought Retirement Concepts, a local British Columbia company that operates long-term care facilities in B.C. That company was then taken over by the Chinese government, yet there was no automatic trigger for an analysis there. We should have that in this bill for when there is a takeover by a foreign state-owned enterprise.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his important work on this file.

As I mentioned, it is not the first time we have updated the Investment Canada Act. We have taken a number of actions to ensure that we have the right tools and flexibility to protect Canada's national security interests. Assuming the bill passes seconding reading in this House, it will go to committee, and there will be many opportunities there for us to have a debate and talk about what additional elements we might want to see in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, what I see is a modernization that would in essence enable the ministers to continue what I believe is a healthy history. Canada has been perceived as, and has been in real terms, an attraction or magnet for foreign investment. What we are talking about here is ensuring there is more transparency and accountability and the ability to protect and provide security in a better way going forward.

The principles of the legislation are worthy of supporting, no matter what side of the House one comes from. I wonder if the member from the Bloc would concur that, at the very least, this legislation should be going to committee. Hopefully it happens relatively soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with what the Conservative member said.

It does not make any sense for an enterprise owned by foreign interests, not just private interests, but state-owned foreign interests, to be able to buy anything under the threshold he mentioned without any oversight. The government is not even bothering to look at whether it is a good thing or not. A review should be automatic when a state-owned enterprise buys a company here.

That does not mean blocking the transaction. The idea is not to block every purchase that might happen here. The same goes for private interests. The idea is for the government to at least review the purchase and ask questions rather than just letting everything go forward. Right now, the government is sticking its head in the sand and not seeing what is happening. It is blind.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government allowed a Chinese insurance giant and bank to take over operations of seniors' living facilities. This company was then seized by the Chinese government, which now holds a 98% ownership stake. There are no provisions in the Investment Canada Act that allow for a review of subsequent acquisitions by state-owned companies.

Does the member support closing this loophole?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously I agree with my NDP colleague, who raises a really good point.

I would add one thing: out of sight, out of mind. That is true in general. It means that the more distanced the executives are from the company's operations, the less interested they are in the company's well-being and results. It means that the further away the owner of a company is geographically from what is happening here, the less accountability there is and the less likely the company owner is to take our national interests into account in their daily business decisions.

That is something the government needs to keep in mind when deciding whether to authorize transactions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged that, toward the tail end, the member referred to the idea that there could be room for improving the legislation. This is a reason that I am hopeful the member would share those thoughts with the minister. Let us ultimately see the legislation go to committee.

At the beginning of his speech, the member referred to this whole one per cent factor. We also need to recognize that some industries need more attention than others. Information technology is an example of this, and I think that is another area that the committee could be looking at.

Could the member provide some additional thoughts in regard to those industries he would think offhand, and I do not expect a list, that there should be more attention given to?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for that good question. I like these concise questions that are on topic and are neither provocative nor arrogant.

To answer my colleague's question, there are indeed several sectors. I am thinking about the biopharmaceutical sector in particular.

In the early 2000s, there were a lot of pharmaceutical companies in Canada, primarily in Quebec. They are all gone now because of the underinvestment in research and development and the underinvestment in programs to develop them.

I think that we need to focus on our own expertise and protect what we have. We are in a globalized economy, and competition is fierce. I encourage my colleague from Winnipeg North to realize that Canada is the only G7 country that cut its investments in research and development. That is too bad. As I said, Canada is the only G7 country that is still unable to stimulate the private enterprise economy.

There is a parallel to be drawn. As I explained very clearly in my speech, when we have fewer head offices, we have fewer means of intervention. This creates jobs in parallel, including with partners in nearby supply chains. Understand this: If we allow others to make decisions for us, people overseas will not take us into consideration as much.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Winnipeg North, I will add food as one of the industries that should be on the list.

However, my question is around the issue of assets. The Investment Canada Act focuses on companies, but more and more, we are seeing Canadian companies selling their strategic assets, sometimes to countries that are not favourable to us. A company could remain Canadian but sell off a mine; a technology; or in our intangible asset world, even data.

Could the member speak to the issue that, if the bill goes to committee, which I believe it will, we should be looking at it in terms of the areas of assets in addition to just companies?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques to please answer briefly because we have to get to the next question.

The hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting subject. We have to avoid the intellectual shortcuts that people sometimes take in the House.

I sure appreciate the opportunity my colleague gave me. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères gave us a very good example. Rona was purchased by foreign interests, a company called Lowe's, not to name names. It was then resold for a pittance. The company the government had invested in was originally valued at over $3 billion, but it was sold for $400 million.

Our constituents are watching us. They placed their trust in us, and they want us to manage their investment with great care. In this case, it was a total failure.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course, coming from British Columbia, my concern is that we saw a Chinese company come in and buy a lot of seniors' homes. When I look at the piece of legislation, there is still a significant loophole. If something were taken over by the Government of China, as it was before, there would be no process for investment Canada or the minister to be able to review the next acquisition.

Is this something the member would support the NDP to look at in the committee?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I touched on this subject briefly in my speech. People with foreign interests or economic interests coming to invest here do not always have our social investments at heart.

She mentioned seniors' homes. I fully agree that we need to pay close attention in modernizing the bill, and we must consider that the interests of foreign investors will not always align with ours.

She makes an interesting point. I gave the example of land grabs. Everyone here needs to eat, just like the general population. It is the same thing. The Bloc Québécois will certainly be able to work with my colleague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks is contained in this bill that would improve the government's performance from the last eight years and the issue of national security reviews of companies bought by Chinese state-owned enterprises in Canada.

Essentially, those powers would not be changing in this act, and the government continues to send notices to Chinese state-owned enterprises that they can buy our companies and our assets without any national security review.

What does the member see in the bill that would change that?

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

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that the direction of the bill is so important. I have risen many times in the House to talk about corporate concentration and foreign ownership. Especially, when foreign owners attempt to purchase an asset in Canada, whether it is a holding company, an operating company or straight asset, and they are backed by, say, a fund that is backed by the government, we need to have the tools and resources to block those types of acquisitions.

If this is going on that track, the bill will hopefully be sent to committee for further studies, further recommendations and more in-depth questions.

I appreciate the hon. member's question. I share those concerns.

We need to make sure that we protect our assets and our companies from national security threats from wherever they may arise throughout the world.

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

Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the member across the way is an accountant by training. So am I, as it happens.

He has been an MP in the Liberal government for a few years now. If I am not mistaken, he, like me, was elected in 2015. In 2015, the net benefit review threshold was $369 million. Today, the threshold is $1.9 billion. There is quite a gap between $1.9 billion and $369 million. However, it was the member's government that raised the threshold year after year. In any case, it does not even review 1% of investments.

My question is the following. As an accountant, does he think that $1.9 billion is pocket change?

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

Madam Speaker, I am actually an economist by training, but I have about half my accounting designation as well, along with my CFA charter. Therefore, I am well versed on the finance issues.

I will say that on any sort of net benefit test, the test should not be on the value of the transaction. It should actually be, in my opinion, on the strategic asset that is being looked at or being purchased by a foreign entity or an entity that we would consider injurious to Canada's national security interests and national economic interests.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, Chinese insurance agent giant Anbang took over B.C.-based Retirement Concepts, a Canadian company that operates senior living facilities.

At the time of acquisition, Anbang was a privately owned corporation. After a review by industry Canada, the takeover was approved, and relatively shortly afterwards, the company was seized by the Chinese government, which now holds 98% ownership. At present, there are no provisions in the ICA that would allow industry Canada or the minister to be able to review this subsequent acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of an ICA approved takeover or merger by a foreign private company.

Does the member opposite not think that this is an issue? Does he agree that amendments are required?

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

Madam Speaker, the care of our seniors in long-term care facilities throughout this country, whoever they may be owned by, is of paramount concern to me and the residents of my riding, as is making sure that we maintain that commitment and promise to take care of our seniors at whatever age they are, so they can have a secure and dignified retirement. That is a solemn promise I made to my constituents. We need to uphold that promise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by my friend from Halifax, the parliamentary secretary, and it is interesting to note that the Minister of Industry did not do a security review on the purchase by Hytera, a state-owned enterprise of China, a telecommunications business. He did not do a security review of China's takeover of our only producing lithium mine. He did not do any security checks on the RCMP buying telecommunications equipment from a Chinese state-owned enterprise. This bill would remove the cabinet from any discussion and involvement in making those decisions at the beginning. Only at the end, and only if the minister decides to take it there, does this bill actually involve the cabinet.

When the Minister of Industry has made such poor decisions on our national security over the last eight years, why does the member think it would be great to remove the cabinet and just leave it up to a minister who clearly does not get it?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my industry committee colleague for his hard work on that committee. I will have to take a disagreeing stance on his characterization of the minister's performance. On the contrary, Canada's national security and economic concerns have been very well protected and championed by this minister. In fact, he has taken changes and issued guidance to the public service based on some of the cases that the member has mentioned.

There is one other difference I would mention from the member's statement. Every case is analyzed individually to determine which level of review will happen. Every case is reviewed. Whether it gets to the final full review, of course, is the decision of the minister. Every case is reviewed, but not all go to the full review.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Halifax, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. It is all well and good to use figures that suit the government. We are used to that with the Liberal government.

My colleague mentioned that Canada is ranked second among G20 countries for foreign investment. That is excellent. We attract companies, but we do not invest. Canada is ranked last among G20 countries for investment in business research and development. I also want to remind my colleague that Canada is the only G7 country that has reduced its investment in research and development in the past 20 years.

It is fine to present figures that look good. However, does he agree that Canada has one of the worst records when it comes to investment in business? Even the magazine Science says that researchers do not want to come to Canada because the scientific ecosystem is lacking and there is not enough funding.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his good question.

We have conflated two issues in this question. One is the issue of domestic investment in research. I agree with my colleague that we can always do better by investing more in Canadian research. That is a very serious pet project of mine, and I work on it weekly.

Coming back to the question of foreign investment, the ranking in the G20 is, in fact, a global ranking. That is something that the government has managed to shift and bring us from the back of the pack up to a very promising place. These seeds that are being planted by the minister through his work will grow and bloom. We will see tremendous foreign investment that will elevate research and productivity, it will create jobs in manufacturing and help us into a just transition.

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

Madam Speaker, New Democrats support the modernization and improvements to the Investment Canada Act. One of the things we are looking for, of course, is the prevention and loss of publicly funded research dollars and development dollars when that money is transferred out of the country.

I reference specifically a case in London, Ontario, where the Conservative government, in 2008, provided funds not only through tax cuts but also research and development dollars to Electro-Motive Canada. Caterpillar bought out the company, moved it to the States and took all that money with it. There was no repayment. There were no consequences, and many Londoners lost their good-paying jobs.

I ask the parliamentary secretary if—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have really run out of time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, give a brief answer, please.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I need further clarification of some of the comments made later in the member's speech about there being a zero threshold. I think that might not be the most effective use of everyone's time if we are chasing every dollar investment that is made in Canada. Does the member find that would be time well spent in our system?

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

Madam Speaker, I think I was quite careful and precise in what I said, but I will repeat it. I said that if the foreign buyer is a Chinese state-owned enterprise, the threshold should be zero. The threshold for the dollar amount of a transaction by a Chinese state-owned enterprise should be zero.

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

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

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

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

Does that not worry my colleague?

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Harper government increased the threshold above which foreign takeover of a Canadian firm is reviewed from $330 million to $1 billion. I am wondering if the member stands by that decision or if he supports reducing the current threshold to zero so every prospective transaction by either state-owned or state-controlled enterprises triggers a review.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said both in my speech and in my remarks to the government deputy whip, if the buyer is a state-owned enterprise of an autocratic regime like the People's Republic of China, the threshold should be zero.

With respect to the preamble to her question regarding the increase to the threshold in general, I think that was made to be compliant with regulation under the WTO. I was not a member of that government, but that is my understanding of why that decision was made quite a number of years ago.

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

Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion on the Liberal side about this issue of zero state-owned enterprises. In the last quarter, four lobster-buying businesses in my riding were acquired by a Chinese state-owned enterprise. It controls the price at the dock. It paid five times the value of the business. It is taking that over. That is why, from my view, I support what the member said, but I wonder if the member could expand on that a little more to educate the folks on the government side so they will accept some amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, that is what this is all about: debate to get the best ideas out there. That is why it is important to go to a zero-dollar threshold when we are talking about a state-owned enterprise from the People's Republic of China. They buy a series of small businesses that in aggregate can actually distort markets. Buying a single fishing boat or buying a single wharf is perhaps not going to distort the market, but when a whole series of transactions below a threshold are combined, it will have the effect of a much larger transaction.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about foreign investment, because as members may recall, in a past life in the Harper government, when we had a robust trade and investment agenda, I had the opportunity to be the trade minister. I travelled around the world to many different countries promoting Canadian investment. That is a two-way street, of course. We can talk about Canadians investing abroad, which we do, but there are also foreign companies—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not know if there is a cross-debate or if members are having conversations, but I would ask them to take their conversations outside.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, foreign investment, whether it is investments coming into Canada or Canadians investing abroad, can contribute markedly to our national prosperity. I have travelled all around the world promoting Canadian investment, because there was a time when Canada was a great place to invest. Sadly, over the last few years under the Liberal government there has been a decline in foreign investment. Why is foreign investment abandoning Canada? It is because of high taxes and regulatory uncertainty. This should concern all Canadians, because when foreign investment comes to Canada, for the most part it drives job creation if it is done right and contributes to our overall prosperity as a country.

However, as we welcome foreign investment into our country, we also have to be very judicious, making sure that those investments, first, represent a net benefit to Canadians and, second, do not represent a national security threat to our country. That is where the Investment Canada Act comes in. It was created to ensure that as foreigners invest in Canada, we have mechanisms and tools available to review those investments, to welcome those who are going to contribute to the overall good of the country and to reject those who are not good for our country.

The bill before us is seeking to introduce some amendments to the Investment Canada Act that purportedly will really improve the robustness of this regime. Unfortunately, if we dig down into the seven main amendments being proposed, they are mostly tinkering around the edges. Why do I say that? I do not believe they will markedly reduce the influence of foreign corporations and their ability to invest in Canada, especially when they come from increasingly hostile regimes around the world.

When we look around the world, I think all of us can agree that investments coming from a country like Russia require special diligence. Investments that come from places like Iran and China require a special degree of vigilance to make sure they serve our national interest. More and more often, we have seen under the Liberal government that investments have come from abroad from the more hostile regimes around the world, which engage in espionage and make investments that are not necessarily for the good of our country but promote a foreign country's economic interests. My colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge has already articulated some of the cases where the Minister of Industry has failed to subject investments to the kind of rigorous review that Canadians would expect of its government.

For example, we had a situation where an RCMP contract was awarded for the supply of sensitive hardware for communications to a company that had earlier been purchased by a China-based company beholden to the communist regime in Beijing. How can that be? It is because the minister refused to do a national security review of that foreign investment into Canada. It was also revealed that the Canada Border Services Agency has used communications equipment and technology from the same company.

Canadians need to know that this very same company was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States. Would we trust this company not to conduct espionage in our country? Of course not. The reality is that I could go through the same list of foreign transactions my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge listed, to which the minister refused to apply the kind of rigour to reviewing these foreign investments that Canadians would expect.

We also have to understand that the geopolitical and security landscape around the world has changed dramatically and the risks Canada faces are that much more acute. We look around the world at countries like China, Russia and Iran that are flexing their muscles economically and militarily in the field of cyber-espionage, and we are incredibly vulnerable, so we have to pay attention to this.

I would also mention that, as we look at investments from abroad, there are some who have said we should be very cautious about welcoming investments of state-owned enterprises from a country like China into our country because of the allegiance of those corporations to the communist regime in Beijing. However, the reality is that, not long ago, China passed a national intelligence law, under which all Chinese corporations and citizens, whether at home or abroad, are required to act as agents of the government and hand over any information the Chinese communist authorities demand.

Therefore, any company from that country, and any citizen from that country, is expected to be an agent of the government, so as we look abroad for investment, it behooves us, as legislators and decision-makers, to make sure we are prudent in whom we welcome to our country to invest.

The largest majority of investments come from countries we would gladly welcome investment from. Obviously, if the United States has a corporation that wants to invest in Canada, we would say we welcome that investment, generally speaking. If it is a huge investment, we may want to put a special spotlight on that investment to make sure there is a net economic benefit to Canada, but by and large, the investments we attract to Canada, we welcome.

As such, the Investment Canada Act is targeted and makes sure that the investments that are problematic are reviewed by our federal government. The legislation before us, unfortunately, had the opportunity to implement the nine recommendations an earlier report from the industry committee had brought forward. Sadly, only two of those recommendations have actually been adopted by the government in its amendments to the Investment Canada Act. What a lost opportunity.

We, as a country, can do so much better, and the reality is that we, as Conservatives, have long had a robust approach to foreign investment. When we were in government, we made major reforms to the Investment Canada Act. We said “no” to investments. We required a number of foreign investments to be qualified and conditional before they could be invested in Canada.

I have just outlined very briefly what it is we are debating here, the Investment Canada Act amendments. Let us make sure we get it right.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member started off by talking about how, in the last few years, Canada has performed horribly in terms of investment, and how nobody wants to invest in Canada. We do not have to dig far into the Internet to find a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development from 2021 that specifically says that Canada, in the last five years, has ranked among the top two in the G20 for doing business; is the third-easiest in the G7 to start a business; is the fourth among the G20 for being the least complex to start a business; and had the second-largest foreign and direct investment-to-GDP ratio in the G20 between 2016 and 2020.

Where is the member getting his information that would suggest Canada is not a place that is open for business?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have yet to learn that they should never ask a former international trade minister a question they do not know the answer to.

Here is the answer. I get my information from the International Monetary Fund. Members will notice that the member did not actually address investment. He talked about GDP, economic performance and regulation, but he did not talk about Canada being a destination for investment.

The IMF said, “According to the latest results...the world’s top ten recipients of foreign direct investment...[are] the United States, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, China, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and Germany.” Canada is not even in the top 10. Shame on us, that we would be so far down the list.

Let me suggest that the member go back to the drawing board, get his statistics right, and then come back to the House and start debating.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he had an opportunity to ask a question, and I want to remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets that it was not his turn to speak either.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague whether the Conservatives would be willing to agree with the NDP that a good amendment to this bill would be to ensure including any investment in a Canadian company made by a foreign investor that goes through, and later that company is bought by a state-owned enterprise.

The example I gave was Anbang Insurance Group in British Columbia and Retirement Concepts. I think we need to make an amendment so we drop the requirements to zero so all those investment proposals would be examined by industry Canada.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do thank the member for that very good question. He has not yet provided us with a copy of the amendment that he would like to propose. We will look at it very carefully.

Quite frankly, it sounds like it makes sense. We, as Conservatives, strongly believe that the Investment Canada Act must be made more robust. I believe the member knows that we will be bringing forward our own amendments at committee to make sure we get that outcome. We do, in principle, support the legislation. It is just that it is a bill that is so lacking in substance when we have an opportunity now to get this right.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the following.

He has said that foreign investment has plummeted during the time of government, while at the same time acquisitions by state-owned and state-controlled enterprises have gone through without review. That has resulted in something that was best captured in last week's Globe and Mail article titled, “The growing threat of a low-wage future for Canadians”. I just want to quote two lines from that editorial.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ranks this country last in potential economic growth over the next 40 years.

If that OECD forecast becomes reality, the Canada of 2060 will be a relatively poorer country, falling further and further behind other advanced economies into second-tier status.

Would the member comment on that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with that article. I am familiar with those statistics, and they are damning of the Liberal government because we could do so much better as a country. We are so rich in human resources and in natural resources. We are high-tech leaders, yet somehow, we are falling further and further behind when it comes to our economic performance. Part of that is the fact that we are no longer an attractive place to invest in.

We can do better.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I do have to stop the hon. member there. She will have four and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House to talk about a very important issue. Today we are talking about investment, national defence and security. The world is a far different place today than it was even a year ago, and there has been an concerted effort by hostile foreign powers to undermine western democracies, undermine our national security, undermine our economic interests and undermine democracy itself.

Before I continue, I want to mention that I am going to be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The west has basically been sleepwalking into the realignment of global power, and if we do not wake up, our lives and interests will be impaired, or worse, children across the world may not have the same freedoms that our children have in our democracies, like independence and the other freedoms we enjoy.

Not only have we allowed nefarious actions to occur right under our noses, but we have actually helped fund this global realignment. In 2018, Canada gave $250 million to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is largely viewed as expanding China’s influence and power in the world. We have been funding it. This is the context that we have to keep in mind when we think about Bill C-34 and this investment act.

These are largely viewed as some of the more significant amendments to this act in well over a decade. The bill provides new ministerial authorities and focuses on special business sectors of interest to the country. I give the government credit for bringing this forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will allow for proper scrutiny in this House, but I want to talk about a few issues.

The first is reciprocity. A fundamental principle in all trade or any real commercial relationship is that each party gets something and gives something in return. There is some exchange of equal value. This is not necessarily the case with what has been happening in global trade with Canada. Certainly it is not the case with how companies and entities invest in Canada.

Canadian companies want to invest in other countries or companies housed in other countries, but Canada does not have that opportunity. Canadian companies do not have that opportunity. It is always puzzling to understand why Canada allows companies and entities that have links to foreign governments to invest in and purchase Canadian assets when Canadian companies themselves are not allowed to make the same investments in those other countries.

The fundamental principle of reciprocity does not exist when Canadian firms cannot make the same investments that we allow companies from other countries to make here. Sometimes those companies are either owned or heavily influenced by a foreign power. Whether that foreign power is hostile or not, geopolitics changes. As we have seen in the last year, things have shifted significantly.

I submit that some of these companies and countries, frankly, are laughing at us all the way to the bank. I am beginning to think that they might think we are suckers. What I am worried about is that they are right. We do not have to look hard to find some examples of what I am talking about that make us scratch our heads.

In 2017, the government did not request a security review of Norsat when it was purchased by Hytera Communications, which is partially owned by the People’s Republic of China. Just recently, at the end of 2022, it was exposed that the government awarded a hardware contract for RCMP communications equipment to a Norsat subsidiary. The United States blacklisted Hytera because it “poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons”.

Where was Canada's review? Was Canada informed by the United States about its findings? Did Canada do the due diligence we would expect it would normally do before a contract like this is awarded, or maybe even before a transaction is approved?

There are more examples, but members can see that our approach can actually weaken our relationships with our partners. We are not holding up our end of the bargain when it comes to national security and defence, and I worry that some countries think we are not taking it very seriously anymore.

I want to talk a bit about the governance we see at some state-owned enterprises and some of the entities that are owned, controlled or heavily influenced by foreign governments. The issue is that the objectives of these entities are not necessarily commercially minded first. They have some other interests potentially at play. They might be interested in locking up the supply of critical minerals. They might be interested in trying to get information, whether that is intellectual property, communications or information about national defence. Proper governance is important for ensuring we have faith in a free market. If these entities are not playing by the same rules and the same principles, we cannot trust all of their motives. We have to be skeptical.

In the last Parliament, a very good proposal was made by the industry committee that when a state-owned enterprise is involved, there is no threshold too low to trigger a review. That is a reasonable approach. When there is a state-owned enterprise involved or an entity that is heavily influenced by a foreign power or could be heavily influenced by a foreign power, the government needs to think about the best interests of Canada.

Who knows what these critical assets will be in the future? I am not sure 20 or 30 years ago people realized that lithium would be as important as it is now, but what about water in the future? Is that something we should be discussing now, or should we have some more flexibility to discuss that?

The other issue is assets versus shares. One can sell a business by selling assets and one can sell a business by selling the shares in the company that owns the assets, but right now we are only looking at issues where shares are purchased. We are exposing ourselves to a loophole that companies and entities can plan around, especially those that have hostile foreign interests.

There are some expanded powers for the minister, and that is okay if we believe and trust the minister. I think the minister in this case is a wonderful individual, and I do trust his judgment. However, we might get a dud in the future. We need to make sure we have proper oversight of the minister, so the Governor in Council and cabinet should have expanded power. Maybe there should even be a third body.

We are required to be stewards of our assets in this country. Defence and security sometimes is more costly. We might not be able to sell to the highest bidder if it undermines our national security. We need to be working to secure Canada's best interests for her future. I hope that the minister and the government are open to amendments.

I appreciate the fact that this has been brought forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation. It will enable the committee to do some good work, I believe, and hear from some important stakeholders. However, I view this legislation as merely a starting point for a conversation and hope to see it enhanced at committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important issue this morning. Before I close, I need to say a very happy birthday to Amanda Philp today, who I am sure is watching this and will see it on repeat a number of times.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good speech and all of the constructive work that he does on the Standing Committee on Finance. He is a really valuable member of the House.

The Bloc Québécois applauds this bill, but we do not think that it goes far enough. National security is important, but we are asking the government to go further and to address the issue of economic security so that we have better control over foreign investments in general and so that we can keep our head offices, our economic levers and control over our resources.

Last year, only 24 or 2% of the 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion were considered to have national security implications. In our opinion, that is not enough. We need better oversight to preserve our economic interests.

What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have very much enjoyed getting to work with the member on the finance committee. He brings many insightful comments forward.

Of course, we think the thresholds the government is currently using to review transactions are likely too low. I would refer the government to recommendations from the previous industry committee. The member rightly recognizes that there are likely more transactions that ought to fall under greater scrutiny to ensure we protect our national interests and the interests of critical resources or materials. He was alluding to jobs and headquarters too, which I think are also a consideration for the government to make sure it is reviewing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is about the question of trust. Since 2004, the NDP has been raising the issue of non-democratic governments owning Canadian companies. I have seen a number of them over the years, whether in the Harper administration or in Paul Martin's. It goes all the way to just last year, and we have seen takeovers.

This is not only with regard to strategic assets, and what we have called for is addressing consumer issues. There are good examples: when Best Buy bought Future Shop and closed it down, when Zellers was bought by Target and it was shut down and when Rona was bought by Lowe's. It is now a private equity firm.

How can we trust the Conservatives' intent on this? We have been raising the issue of private equity firms in kingdoms and other places that do not have the full disclosure the free market would have. Are we going to have the same standards for them? They are really important, especially private equity firms, because other governments own an interest in them.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may be happily surprised to hear Zellers is returning in a few locations. That may be some welcome news.

In any event, the world is different today. Geopolitics changes over time and regimes change. That is why we need principles under which to look at all transactions.

I agree about entities that are controlled by or influenced by a foreign power, for example, whether it is hostile or not. A hostile power today might not be a hostile power tomorrow, and one that is not today could be one tomorrow. Any time there is a lack of governance and transparency, the government should be on high alert and scrutinizing the transaction to the absolute highest degree.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is very pleased with this legislation, which would give him more power to extend the national security reviews of investments. By doing so, the power would be moved from the Governor in Council and would place the responsibility in the hands of two ministers: the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Public Safety.

Why should we trust the government to remove the accountability measure of putting these types of issues to cabinet? As we have seen over the last eight years, there is an incredible move toward putting more power within the hands of ministers and outside advisory councils with no accountability to this place.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely excellent question. I see that there are expanded powers for two ministers. I trust at least one of them. However, the Governor in Council provides a more fulsome review. Maybe even an external body that is removed from politics would be the right way to go.

As I have said, we never know whom we will end up having as a minister, and I think we should take a bit more power away from one individual and spread it out to a greater group.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about foreign investment in Canada: What are the benefits? What are the risks?

Canada is a large nation by geography, but a relatively small nation when measured by population or by economic power. We are a small contributor, relatively speaking, to the world economy, but we are punching above our weight class, and the only way we can do that is by being a trading nation. That means we have to sell what the world wants and buy what the world has to offer, but we also have to be open to foreign investment, to allow investors to contribute to our economy but also to make a good return on that investment.

This money is very mobile. A big hypothetical pension fund, for example, with a lot of money to invest, does not come to Canada because we are nice people or, as the Prime Minister says, because the world needs more Canada. That is just naive. Investment money goes where it can earn a rate of return. It is a very competitive market.

The LNG sector in Canada is a very good example of that. LNG Canada is building a large export terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, for shipping clean, ethical liquid natural gas to world markets, to our trading partners, so they can replace dirtier burning coal. This is a partnership among some very large international corporations, such as Shell Canada, Korea Gas Corporation and Mitsubishi Corporation, and there are a lot of foreign investment dollars involved here.

This is what the world needs more of: more Canadian, clean, ethical liquid natural gas to help our trading partners get off coal. Unfortunately, this is not according to our Prime Minister, who just recently told the German chancellor that there is no business case to be made for Canada supplying Europe with liquid natural gas so that Europe can reduce or get rid of its dependency on Russia. Investors need to hear that kind of talk only once from our Prime Minister and they head for the exits.

Happily, for the investors, there is a place for them to go. Late last year, the White House announced that it will work with the industry to ensure that U.S. liquid natural gas is available to replace Russian natural gas in the European market. Apparently there is a business case to be made, after all. The world smiles at Canada's naïveté.

That is where we are after eight years of Liberal mismanagement of our economy. The fundamental problem with the way the Liberal government has been managing, or rather mismanaging, our economy is that it does not look to the fundamental economic principles.

Take, for example, our economic productivity metrics. Canada lags, in a significant way, behind our largest trading partner, the United States. For every dollar that American workers pump into their GDP, their Canadian counterparts add 75¢ to our national economy. This does not mean that we are not working as hard as the Americans. We may be working harder than the Americans. It is just that we do not have the tools. We do not have the best tools available. We are lagging in investing in our tech sector and we are not investing aggressively in growth industries.

Also, there is too much red tape, too much useless bureaucracy, which just gets in the way of hard-working Canadians using their ingenuity to grow our economy. This is what our leader, the member for Carleton, calls “gatekeepers”, who are just standing in the way. Let us get rid of them.

Economists recognize that this productivity lag is a big, significant problem for Canada. Even our current Minister of Finance mentions this in her 2022 budget report and in her fall economic statement. She calls it “Canada's Achilles heel”. She understands the problem, but it is too bad that her boss does not seem to be paying attention to that.

The former minister of finance actually underlines that. He agrees with the current Minister of Finance. In his recent book, he says this: “productivity improvement is the most important issue on our agenda”. It is not “one of the most important” but “the most important”. However, in his words, “neither the PM nor the Prime Minister’s Office saw the need to address our anemic growth”.

That is where we are. After eight years of Liberal mismanagement, everything seems broken, including our economy. What Canada needs is a strong Conservative government that understands the basic principles of economics and how to grow the economy for the benefit of all, and that means working with foreign investors to attract investment money to Canada.

When we are talking about foreign investment, it is important, in my opinion, to reflect on where we are today in relation to where we were 50 years ago.

In 1974, when the Investment Canada Act's predecessor, the Foreign Investment Review Act, was the law, intangible assets, which are things that cannot be picked up with a forklift, ideas in our head like intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks and patents, accounted for only 17% of the S&P 500's assets by dollar value.

If we fast-forward a decade, when the old act was replaced with the current Investment Canada Act, which we are talking about today, the intangible assets ratio had doubled to 32%. After that, it just accelerated. Today, it stands at roughly 90% of the S&P 500's total assets by dollar value.

Let us move a little closer to home, to the Toronto Stock Exchange, a less technology-driven exchange. There, the comparable number is 70%. The European comparable number is 77%. This is hard data that Canada lags in developing our knowledge-based economy, and that is part of the reason why our productivity numbers are lagging.

Where are we after eight years of a Liberal government? We have low productivity numbers, a lack of investor confidence in Canada and a lack of focus on our knowledge-based economy. It really is time for a change at the top.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. The parliamentary Committee on Industry, Science and Technology studied this a couple of years ago. It is too bad that the minister did not pick up on all the recommendations. That report highlights the need for foreign investment in the tech industry, but it also points out some of the challenges and risks.

If we are attracting money from non-friendly, non-democratic countries, they may profit more from that than we do. One example is a state-owned enterprise funding a research chair at a world-class Canadian university. At the end of the whole process, after a lot of contributions by Canadian brainpower into new intellectual property, the foreign company ends up owning it. That is a big risk. I am happy to see that the federal government has finally zeroed in on that.

One of the recommendations, recommendation 1, as my colleague mentioned already, was not picked up by the minister when he drafted Bill C-34. That recommendation would require that the valuation threshold for prospective acquisitions of control of Canadian assets or shares by state-owned or state-controlled enterprises must be reduced to zero. That being said, every proposed transaction that would transfer direct or indirect control of a Canadian corporation or assets to a foreign-owned enterprise would be scrutinized. I agree with that. It is too bad it was not picked up in the bill.

We will be supporting Bill C-34 at second reading, in principle, so that it can go to committee, where hopefully it will pick up recommendation 1. We will work diligently at committee to make sure that Bill C-34 comes back better for third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's excellent speech. In fact, the last two speeches have been superb speeches on Bill C-34.

The member raised an issue around recommendation 1 from the industry committee report on state-owned enterprises. I would like to ask him something along a similar vein. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry was at the House of Commons industry committee this week. I asked him about the acquisition of the Tanco lithium mine in Manitoba, the only lithium-producing mine in Canada, by the Chinese government in 2015, and why he had not included that in his divestiture request of Chinese state-owned enterprises a few months ago. He said that he could not do it, that he could not go back far enough.

There is nothing in this bill that will allow, when a regime changes, for the minister to go back and revisit a transaction when a regime becomes less co-operative as part of the world framework. I wonder if the member could comment on whether or not there should be changes to the bill to allow for that kind of review to go back further.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I mentioned only one flaw in this legislation because we were pressed for time, but this is definitely another one.

The Canada Investment Act has not been reviewed in a long time. Its predecessor, the Foreign Investment Review Act, was with us for many years. It was drafted at a time when we were concerned about international corporations taking over our energy sector. Today, the world is different. Unfortunately, Bill C-34 does not pick up on all of these things.

I am confident that the industry committee will look at this thoroughly in its line-by-line review and the bill will come back in a much better shape than it is today.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is about the increasing number of foreign investments we see in the health sector, where for-profit companies from abroad see Canada as a place to make profits off the health care needs of Canadians. I am thinking of Anbang, which bought up Retirement Concepts. It owns 20 retirement homes in British Columbia and is the largest source of substantiated complaints about care in the province.

Does the member believe that this version of the bill will provide adequate protection against for-profit companies trying to invade the health care sector?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I am not familiar with that particular file, so I will have a conversation with my colleague about that afterwards, but no, I do not think this bill provides adequate coverage for that. This is another one of the missed opportunities in redrafting the Investment Canada Act, so it is definitely something the committee should look at.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

With the pandemic, we saw how fragile the global economy is when it comes to supply chains. I really expected the government to propose quicker, more constructive solutions than what it is proposing, which is almost nothing at all.

According to my colleague, will Bill C‑34 help to address the supply chain issue? If not, what does the government—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is no translation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is working now.

The hon. member for Joliette can repeat his question.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that with the pandemic, we saw the fragility of global supply chains.

Honestly, I expected the government to come up with strategies quickly to help the industries in the Canadian economy overcome this problem. To my knowledge, nothing or practically nothing has been done to help these companies.

Does my hon. colleague believe that Bill C‑34 addresses that a little bit or not at all? What should the government do to promote the economy here as it pertains to the supply chain problem?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the pandemic revealed a lot of things to us. We are a free-trading nation, which is one of Canada's strengths, but it can also be one of its weaknesses in that we have seen through the pandemic that supply chain disruptions interrupted our ability to get products that are necessary for us. I am thinking of the pharmaceutical industry and how we learned about its weaknesses during the pandemic, when we were standing in line behind many other countries before we could get a vaccine. I think the pandemic has taught us that, although we are free traders and it is important for us to attract foreign investment money here, we also need to look after the essential things of our own economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

In December 1973, Parliament enacted the Foreign Investment Review Act, which was known as FIRA, to deal with the issue of foreign investors controlling Canadian industry, trade and commerce, and the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic future.

These investments would be allowed to proceed only if the government had determined that they were, or were likely to be, of significant benefit to Canada. This net benefit test still exists today, but much has changed given rising national security concerns that necessitate new measures. Let me elaborate.

In June 2017, Hytera Communications, a company owned by the Chinese Communist Party, acquired Norsat International, a B.C. telecom company. Just like that, a firm backed by an authoritarian regime took over an essential service provider here in Canada.

One would think this takeover would have raised some red flags, but it did not, not for the Liberal government at least. If it had acted rationally, the government would have conducted a national security review into Hytera. However, after eight years in power, it is clear that rationality is in short supply these days.

It did not bat an eye when, as all of this was taking place, our own Border Services Agency was using equipment from Hytera. We are talking about a company that has been charged with 21 counts of espionage. That company has been banned from doing business with our neighbour to the south. Up until that point, the Liberals have said that business is business, even when it means letting a hostile regime gain access to our essential services.

This sort of lax attitude toward issues of national security is clearly a problem. What is even more problematic is that for five long years after the Hytera fiasco, the government has not learned from its mistakes.

In 2020, it gave out a contract to Nuctech, a company founded by the son of a Chinese Community Party secretary general. It would not have taken a national security review to figure out who the company's founder was. A quick Google search would have sufficed.

It was not just standard, run-of-the-mill work that this company with Chinese Communist Party connections was doing. Nuctech was supplying X-ray equipment, of all things, to almost 200 Canadian embassies and consulates.

Two years ago, it looked like the government was changing its course when it updated its national security review guidelines. This was not the case, or at least it certainly was not the case when the Minister of Industry greenlit the takeover of a Canadian lithium mine by a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

Once again, the opportunity was right there. The minister could have requested a national security review. The review framework was even new and improved, or so they would have us think. However, the minister did not act. Delays, half measures and slaps on the wrist. Those have been the Liberal responses to national security threats throughout the past eight years.

Huawei is a perfect example of this. By 2021, each and every one of our allies within the Five Eyes had already banned Huawei from using their 5G networks. For years, my colleagues and I have been calling on the government to do the right thing: Listen to our allies, listen to security experts and ban Huawei from accessing 5G.

Reluctantly, and far too late, the Liberals finally took our advice and took a stand against the Chinese Communist Party. That was less than a year ago. With the Liberal government's dismal track record in matters related to national security, Bill C-34 feels like too little, too late. It is like the goalie letting in eight goals, then coming onto the ice at the last minute and saying, “Don't worry guys. I've got this.”

To be fair, this bill does address Canada's national security. It is a policy area where the government has been complacent for far too long. For that reason, I am prepared to support the bill at this stage, as long as it can be strengthened in committee.

For a while, a lot of us had the naive idea that these regimes were emerging partners, and they were slowly moving toward the democratic norm. Putin's war changed all of that, and it is time that Canada acted accordingly. It is time for a reality check. Hostile foreign governments want to subvert and undermine this country. The threat is real and the threat is here. Canadians are well aware. A few weeks ago, all that Canadians had to do was look up and see a Chinese surveillance balloon flying at 60,000 feet.

Bill C-34 responds to this new reality, but not well enough and not in its current form. The bill puts the power to request national security reviews in the hands of the Minister of Industry, the same minister whose predecessor did not even request a security review when Hytera took over an essential Canadian telecom provider. It is the same minister who, even after strengthening the security review guidelines in 2021, chose not to investigate the Chinese takeover of a critical Canadian mining company.

The bill is only as strong as the minister's scrutiny, whoever that minister may be in the future. Conservatives believe matters of such importance should be scrutinized by all of cabinet to make sure nothing slips through the cracks.

There are also existing problems with the Investment Canada Act that are not even addressed in Bill C-34. For no apparent reason, when a state-owned enterprise invests in a Canadian company, a national security review is only triggered if the Canadian company has assets worth more than $454 million. This provision has it all wrong. It is not about the size of the company that is being acquired. It is about the security risks that would inherently arise when a hostile state-owned company gains control over a critical service or product here in Canada.

Bill C-34 needs a provision that would trigger an automatic national security review when a state-owned enterprise invests in Canada. The threshold should be zero dollars, not $454 million. Also, the bill would only deal with share purchases and non-asset purchases. Therefore, in theory, there is a roundabout way that foreign investors could acquire assets in Canada and completely circumvent the legislation. It is clearly a loophole that needs to be plugged.

Since 2017, Chinese companies have been governed by the national intelligence law. This law compels every citizen and every company to hand over data to Chinese intelligence agencies. For almost six years, so much Canadian information has gone to China's autocratic government that it is hard to even quantify. We need to put an end to this, but right now, Bill C-34 would not do that.

Bill C-34 needs a presumption against allowing the takeover of Canadian companies by China's designated state-owned entities. It needs a reformed net benefit test to better account for the potential effects of a transaction on the broader innovation ecosystem, with a particular focus on protecting intellectual property and human capital. It needs automatic review of transactions involving sensitive sectors, such as defence, artificial intelligence and rare earth minerals. It also needs a mandatory national security review for state-owned enterprises where national security is a concern.

The act would not attempt to change definitions of state-owned enterprises or look at the issue of what constitutes control. One would not have to buy 50% of a company to control it. Someone could buy small percentages of it, get a number of seats on the board or change management, which Hytera has done.

It is clear that Canada needs to improve these protections. Bill C-34 would be a small step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite troubling to hear that when the U.S. identifies national security risks, it shuts them down, and our LIberal government does absolutely nothing about it.

I wonder if the member can comment on what kind of signal this Liberal dithering sends to investors and to our allies, as far as addressing national security risks goes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say what the elephant in the room was this morning. There is a report in The Globe and Mail saying how the extent to which the Chinese Communist Party tried to manipulate the results of both the 2019 and 2021 elections was surely a bombshell revelation.

We are dealing with a government that cannot even protect the basic integrity of our elections, and we are asking it to now make sure that we are secure in terms of foreign investment. I have grave concerns about Bill C-34 coming out of committee in a strengthened way. I certainly hope that members on the committee and in the Liberal Party see that this bill does need to be strengthened. We are living in a whole new world where it is not just about the net economic benefit anymore. It is about what the national security threats are to Canada as a whole.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Finance. It is truly a pleasure to work with him. I thank him for his speech. He raised a number of very troubling issues.

I want to refer to the annual report from the department's investment division, which was tabled in Parliament last October. In the preceding year, there were 1,255 foreign investment projects, totalling $87 billion. However, only 2%, or 24 of them, were determined to have national security implications and would be covered by the new rules set out in this bill. The other 1,221 investments remain subject to the old rules. Of those, only eight, or less than 1%, were subject to a review to determine if they will truly provide a net economic benefit.

According to my hon. colleague, is the government doing enough to ensure both national and economic security?

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the finance committee. He always has excellent questions and makes excellent points, and this is in fact one of them.

This is an opportunity to really overhaul how Canada reviews foreign investment, in light of the new world that we are living in. I agree with the member entirely. The committee needs to have a serious look at what we could do. It could be by reducing the threshold to zero; by including asset purchases; by making sure it is not just the Minister of Industry who decides, but all of cabinet or some other broader mechanism. That would make sure Canadians remain in control of their economic future.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that this government really has failed in terms of protecting security in Canada. Let us look back in history. It was the Harper government that increased the threshold above which a foreign takeover of a Canadian firm would be reviewed in the first place.

Would the member support reducing the current threshold for a prospective acquisition of either state-owned or state-controlled enterprises to zero so that every transaction triggers a review, including a net benefit test and a national security test?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the member had listened to my speech before she asked her question. If she reviews the Hansard, she will see that is, in fact, exactly what I said. I don't think the $454 million threshold solves the problem anymore. It should be zero.

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

Mr. Speaker, getting into the substance of Bill C-34, this is an important topic. I do not know whether this legislation really crosses into being an important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it is another half measure, a poorly drafted piece of legislation. It is going in the right direction, there is no doubt, but I want to give a little context before we break into a piece-by-piece discussion of Bill C-34. I will give a bit of a historical reference.

When we look back over thousands of years, the nations, peoples and countries that innovate the best end up having the most prosperity. They are the ones that drive the world forward. If we look at the Roman Empire, it dominated the world and was a leader in innovation in that era. If we look back to the Industrial Revolution, we saw the prosperity of humanity grow exponentially during that time because of innovation. If we look at the digital revolution, the countries that will dominate are those that take hold of the new world we are entering. They are the ones that will see new levels of prosperity.

Unfortunately, as innovation continues to go forward, Canada seems not to. We see that innovation is growing exponentially. This is not a linear chart; things are going faster and faster. Indeed, when we look forward to technologies such as artificial intelligence, bioscience and big data, these things will have a real impact on our lives. I strongly suggest that the world of my children is going to be a lot different than the world I grew up in, and their children will inherit a much different world.

As the pace of change continues to grow exponentially, governments have to be more agile and quicker to respond than ever. As Elon Musk commented recently, many of these technologies can have tremendous power for good, but they can also pose substantial challenges to our societies and governments. That is why we need a government that is willing to be agile.

For Canada to prosper, we must have a government that is starting to lead the way with respect to innovation and technology. Unfortunately, the government, as we have seen, seems challenged to even keep the lights on, much less to innovate and move forward. As we look forward, we see that the empirical data is coming back over the last eight years of government, and the numbers are not pretty.

Canada has traditionally been a leader in innovation and productivity, yet we are falling further and further behind. We are currently ranked sixth out of the seven G7 countries. That is nearly last in the G7 when it comes to intellectual property. Intellectual property will be the driver of our future economy. It will drive our future of prosperity. It is what manufacturing was to the 1950s and 1960s. It is what agriculture was to the many centuries before. Those who are able to prosper in that area, to conquer the area of intellectual property, will be the ones who win the future.

Canada currently ranks 24th overall with respect to knowledge and technology, which are measured by patents generated. We used to be in the top 10 in that area and we are falling further and further behind.

Canada's issue is not with respect to basic research. We are recognized around the world as being one of the best idea generators in the entire world. We have some of the brightest minds. We have a wonderful diversity of opinion that no doubt comes from our diverse and great population. We have wonderful post-secondary education. We have many different great think tanks and institutions that generate these wonderful ideas.

Indeed, our ideas are generating prosperity. The challenge is that they are generating prosperity in countries other than ours. What is happening is that we are generating these great ideas and, being the generous Canadians we are, we are giving them to the world.

The problem is that they are taking those ideas and selling them back at a profit. Although Canadians are doing a lot of the hard work in coming up with the great ideas that are leading this world and lifting people into prosperity, Canadians are not getting the benefit from that.

Whether it is from sheer incompetence, naïveté or worse, the government does not seem to understand the world we are in today. It does not understand the world of aggressive trade action and of state-owned enterprises. Companies and states around this world, authoritarian regimes, are utilizing Canada's generosity to put themselves ahead of Canadians.

This is not, and we heard this from other colleagues, really a partisan issue. There are people raising the red flags from across the political spectrum. Jack Mintz, a noted economist and free marketeer, is talking about this as an issue, as is Jim Balsillie, founder of BlackBerry and noted expert on intellectual property.

We also have that “random Liberal”. That has to hurt Bill Morneau, right? One day I will be out of this place and I just hope that the next prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, never refers to me—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member might need to leave sooner than he thought, by resigning, after he just said the first and last names of the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the Speaker would like to weigh in on this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind members that we cannot refer to members of the House of Commons by their proper names and that we need to go by riding names. I suggest the member should retract that and use the correct terminology.

The hon. member Northumberland—Peterborough South has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will apologize and not resign. I am glad I gave the member for Kingston and the Islands something to do today. I am pleased to have accomplished that today.

Like I said, it has to hurt Bill Morneau to be referred to as a random Liberal. I certainly hope the next Prime Minister of Canada does not refer to me, or any member of our caucus, as a random Conservative, or worse, a random Liberal, I suppose.

When I get into the substance of Bill C-34, the challenge is not directional. Directionally, it is on the right path. The government is trying to at least take the steps it needs to in order to protect domestic assets, corporations and intellectual property from foreign actors.

The challenge is that it is not particularly well drafted, at least in my opinion and in the opinions of many other experts, and that it does not go far enough. We heard my colleagues talk specifically about some things that should be in there. For the record, I will reiterate what they said.

First, we need to have not only sales of shares but also sales of assets. One can buy the actual corporation, which is buying the vessel, but one can also buy everything within that vessel. There are many different ways smart lawyers and accountants can avoid that, and this legislation is not smart enough, at least not yet, to catch those.

We need to have automatic triggers, regardless of the amounts of sales, in certain sectors and also with respect to certain state-owned enterprises.

While Conservatives acknowledge this is a step in the right direction, we are very hopeful we can have a robust conversation in committee and improve Bill C-34, because it certainly needs it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who also sits on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would first like to comment on the point of order. I want to quote a line from a French movie, a Christmas classic: “I am not blaming you, Pierre”.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. That is how I see it.

I would like to ask my colleague to explain once more what the government should do to improve the bill and enhance what is being proposed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed working with the fine member from the Bloc Québécois at the finance committee. I am confident we will work with the members of the Bloc to include things like automatic triggers for reviews by cabinet and for reducing the ability of actors to avoid this through things like asset sales and otherwise.

We need to tighten up potential loopholes in this legislation to make sure we can fully protect Canadian companies, resources and ideas.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am just looking for a comment from the member. Why should we believe the Liberals would even use these new powers, after eight years of inability to recognize national security risks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is a great thing that I speak on behalf of the government. What I would say is that there are many different fields where the government could have acted, including perhaps reviewing past applications and transactions. That simply has not been done in many cases and should have been. Divestitures should have happened with respect to state-owned enterprises. Even with regard to other issues, such as passports or putting in place Magnitsky sanctions on human rights, the government cannot seem to get out of its own way.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I listen to my colleague's discussion on Bill C-34, and I cannot help but think of some of the incredible investments we have seen just recently in a neighbouring area to where our ridings are. In particular, in Hastings—Lennox and Addington, I think of the incredible work the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did in attracting Umicore, a multi-billion dollar operation to build electric vehicle batteries right in a neighbouring riding to both of ours.

Would he not agree that the types of investments we can see through the modernization of this act would continue to benefit not just our ridings but Canada as a whole?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a joy to be a neighbour of the member for Kingston and the Islands. That probably ends my career with the Conservative Party, but there we go.

What I would say to him, in all seriousness, is that that is a great exception. It unfortunately proves the rule that Canada continues to be a laggard in the G7 and the OECD when it comes to productivity and innovation.

While I certainly welcome the manufacturing jobs, it would be even better to get the research and development, as well as the heads of these companies, right here in Canada so that we would not be just a secondary manufacturer or resource economy but actually have a controlling interest and prosper from our own ideas.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about foreign corporations and state-owned corporations funding research chairs at our world-class leading universities and, at the end of the process, being the owners of the intellectual property that has been produced by Canadian brain power.

Does he think there should be controls or regulations around that? Does Bill C-34 address that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to acknowledge the world that we live in today, not the world we lived in 20 years ago. There are challenging actors out there who are trying to take Canadian ideas and utilize them for their own prosperity.

We must control our ideas. We have to be straightforward with it but cannot back away from the ideas. Canadian ideas are Canadian, and they are there for Canadian prosperity.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑34, the national security review of investments modernization act, which was introduced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

As the minister, my colleague from Saint‑Maurice—Champlain, mentioned, this bill is an attempt to update and strengthen the Investment Canada Act through seven amendments.

I will not list them all, but I will say that the government is seeking to streamline the minister's ability to investigate national security reviews of investments, strengthen penalties, create a list of industries in which acquisitions would automatically be subject to national security reviews, give the minister the power to impose interim conditions, remove the Governor in Council from the process for making an order for further national security reviews and substitute the minister, and improve coordination with international partners.

The act was last modernized in 2009. It is true that an update is needed. As my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets and shadow minister for industry mentioned, I can confirm from the outset that we will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading. We will, however, work to make improvements to it.

If there is one phrase that sums up how we feel about this bill, it is “too little, too late”. After eight years of this Liberal government approving countless acquisitions of Canadian companies by state-owned firms, we are skeptical that protecting our national security interests is important to this government.

There is no shortage of examples of breaches. There have been numerous cases over the past few years where this government failed to take the real threats posed by foreign investments seriously.

I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Over the past two years, we have examined several cases of government failures during transactions and contracting processes that had the potential to compromise national security.

I will share a few examples, some of which are very disturbing.

In January 2022, the Minister of Industry failed to follow his own guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of the Canadian company Neo Lithium by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining without a national security review.

It seems to me that when a company controlled by the Chinese Communist regime wants to buy a Canadian company, that should raise a red flag. Unfortunately, that did not happen in this case. We are talking about rare materials that are important in dealing with climate change, for making more batteries and such. Lithium is an extremely important element in the production of batteries. A review should have been done.

As I just mentioned, this is a Canadian company specializing in critical minerals, like lithium. Unfortunately, this government did not sound the alarm or issue warnings. We should already be doing everything we can to protect our companies in such a key sector, but, when the buyer has ties to the Chinese Communist regime, that is stating the obvious. A serious and rigorous review should have automatically been considered.

The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertook an urgent study on this subject to investigate this questionable transaction. Following this study, we made three recommendations.

The first recommendation reads as follows: “That the government create a formalized and transparent process...by which government departments provide advice to the Minister...regarding decisions made under the Investment Canada Act”.

The second recommendation reads as follows, “That the Minister issue a notice...for all investments by firms from authoritarian regimes considered to be state-owned enterprises under the Investment Canada Act”.

It is worth noting that in China, the government often controls many companies, either partially or fully, through various means, so we need to have a closer look at that.

The third recommendation reads, “That the Minister release in a timely manner a full and comprehensive Critical Minerals Strategy”.

A year has passed, but it is clear that nothing has been done in that regard, unfortunately.

I will give a second example of a dubious contract. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract for sensitive communications equipment to Sinclair Technologies, which is a subsidiary of Norsat.

It is important to note that Norsat, which was founded and based in Richmond, British Columbia, had itself been acquired by Hytera Communications. Who owns Hytera?

It is headquartered in China and is therefore partly owned by the Communist regime of the People's Republic of China. The company is even a major supplier to China's national security department. The $500,000 contract was awarded without any thorough investigation or verification, even though it is known within the federal public service that China and the companies it controls have attempted to interfere in Canadian affairs.

When the media broke the story, the minister responsible took swift action and cancelled the contract. Still, it is astounding that, once again, no one in government saw this coming, no one realized how dangerous the situation was.

Hytera has been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States. President Biden has banned the company from doing business in the U.S., but it is free to operate here, no problem. The Prime Minister trusts everyone. Forgive me for questioning the severity of what the government wanted to do at that time.

I have one final, particularly troubling example that I would like to present here. It was identified by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In 2020, the Minister of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to the Chinese company Nuctech, founded by the son of the former secretary general of the Chinese Communist Party, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 Canadian embassies and consulates. The contract was worth $6.8 million.

Although it was assured that this equipment would not be connected to embassy networks, the contracts included delivery, installation, and maintenance. Again, this is a question of national security. It is extremely important to verify these things.

During his testimony before the committee, David Mulroney, Canada's former ambassador to China, had some very harsh, but very fair, words for the government. He said that the experience gives us a troubling glimpse into this government's incompetence in dealing with China, considering that it has received clear, daily warnings that China is a strategic challenge to our country. However, there is no sign that the government is any more aware, no sign it has developed a greater sense of urgency to identify and better manage China-related issues. There is no evidence of any efforts to galvanize the government as a whole. All departments and agencies need to make an urgent effort to ensure that this does not happen.

This shows an appalling lack of leadership. Once again, history has repeated itself. We are hoping for changes to the bill. After second reading, it will go to committee, where we will be able to propose amendments.

I could say a lot more about this bill, but it is no different from everything else. Everything is broken.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Harper government increased the threshold above which a foreign takeover of a Canadian firm is reviewed, from $300 million to a billion.

Does the member stand by that decision or will he support reducing the current threshold to zero, so that every prospective transaction for either state-owned or state-controlled enterprises triggers a review?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we made that decision several years ago, the reality was that the value of international investments was much higher. We wanted the flexibility to conduct the reviews for contracts within those amounts.

Yes, I agree with the amounts. Given the current cost of living, the cost of building or repairing a home or buying a business has increased spectacularly because of the inflation caused by the current government. Inevitably, greater flexibility was required in conducting these reviews.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some very troubling points in his speech.

There seems to be a trend. Year after year, the number of foreign investments made in Canada goes up, as does their value. According to the latest available data, there were 1,255 applications for a total of $87 billion. Only eight of those applications were reviewed.

This bill would bump the number of applications reviewed up a bit, to 24. That is barely 2%. It does not sound like that is enough.

What should the government do to improve this bill?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for that very important question.

We will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. Together, we can make sure all the necessary elements are in place to do a review. Obviously, China is not the only country that could pose a national security risk to Canada. We want to work together to make sure the strictest standards and safeguards are in place to prevent incidents like those we have seen in recent years.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the Conservative Party will be voting in favour of this bill. It is important to make investments before things get difficult. Can he comment on the fact that it really is important to modernize the international trade regulations?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that we need to implement the necessary safeguards to prevent national security risks for Canadians, whether it be in telecommunications, business or health. In every area, we need to ensure that these safeguards are broad enough to ensure that nothing harmful gets through and avoid this type of incident.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the questions and responses, I think there has been some confusion about what this bill addresses, which is investment by foreign state-owned enterprises as opposed to foreign investment that is private and not from authoritarian state-owned enterprises. I wonder if the member could use the remaining time to ensure that we understand the difference.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. Indeed, companies run or controlled by entities such as China, which is a communist regime, pose a risk. The threat to Canada comes from that type of country. There is a fundamental difference between private companies and companies run by countries.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents from Kelowna—Lake Country.

I am here today to speak on Bill C-34. Since Confederation, people from all over the world have believed in Canada as a place worth investing in, but an open-door policy for investment will only improve the public good if we keep our eyes wide open to see who comes through our door.

In this, the Liberals have proven far too lax and have been asleep for eight years. It is a different time than it was generations ago and different than even eight years ago. A business that leaves its door open and unattended would swiftly go broke. So, too, would a country that does not recognize the difference between an investing free market ally and untrustworthy regimes.

I am glad, in the name of improving our economic and national security, that this legislation has been put forward in this bill before us today to strengthen the Investment Canada Act, but I cannot hide my disappointment that the Liberals have dragged their feet for eight years to do so and still provide legislation that, if I am being honest, is really only half-finished.

What we have before us is a bill that asks Parliament to protect the security of foreign investment by granting more power to the very ministers who ignored foreign investment threats. Traditionally, when the security guard falls asleep, he does not get a promotion the next day. The laundry list of these instances runs quite long in the eight years of the Liberals in power, so I will only provide a few examples of the government's negligence in the name of time today.

In 2017, the Minister of Industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of B.C.-based telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary, Sinclair Technologies by the China-based Hytera Communications.

In 2019, that minister failed again to request a full national security review when the Chinese Sinomine Resources purchased the Manitoba-based Tantalum Mining Corporation, one of Canada's largest lithium producers.

In 2020, the Minister of Foreign Affairs approved another China-based company in Nuctech to supply security equipment to 170 Canadian embassies and consulates.

In 2022, that same foreign affairs minister then became the Minister of Industry and approved the takeover of Canada's Neo Lithium Corp. by a Chinese state-owned enterprise with no national security review.

To talk about this one for a moment, this undermined Canada's supply chain opportunities. Lithium is classified as a critical mineral in Canada, which Ottawa says are critical to Canada's economy and imperative to battery storage, in particular for the electric vehicle industry. The regime of China is establishing global dominance on securing critical mineral assets and intellectual property, which are imperative to high-tech manufacturing, including electric vehicles. This is a prime example of when the subjective authority is given to one person, a minister, as opposed to having solid laws and policies.

Just last month it was discovered that the Minister of Public Safety allowed the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to sign equipment deals with Hytera Communications despite the United States having banned them from doing business after charging them with 21 counts of espionage. Communications technologies, security equipment and lithium mining are integral parts of Canadian national security and the security of our allies.

Lithium mining and the export of other critical minerals are vital to breaking western reliance on Chinese-made electronics. We are blessed in Canada with some of the continent's greatest quantities of minable minerals. Still, as I have outlined today, the Liberal government has been more receptive to providing access to our natural resources to our foes than to our friends. State-owned enterprises are not operating separately from the interests of their centralized autocratic governments.

Sadly, it has taken until year eight of the Liberal government to realize that. It has also taken it eight years to develop a critical minerals strategy, leaving us behind in supplying ourselves and our allies. I will mention that the Liberal strategy on critical minerals really is not a comprehensive strategy.

The International Energy Agency forecasts that by 2030, the production of electric vehicles could reach 43 million units per year, with production valued at more than $567 billion U.S.

Robin Goad, president and chief executive officer of Fortune Minerals Limited, said that his company has been speaking with the federal government about critical minerals for more than five years but has yet to see substantive action. Their proposed mine would supply Canada with minerals like cobalt, gold and copper, and provide much-needed employment to Canadians in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Goad put it best when he said of the government, on critical minerals, that “it's all smoke and mirrors right now” and “It's time we stop talking about this and actually [start] doing something.”

Mined-in-Canada cobalt, graphite, lithium and nickel could become made-in-Canada batteries supplying our allies' electric needs while improving our environment. Instead, the Liberals chose to drag their feet on clean, green prosperity for Canadians. A Conservative government will do something. We will recognize that our natural resources are Canadians' opportunities for prosperity, not bureaucracy.

I previously sat on the industry committee and some of this work has been done on previous studies, including the critical minerals study and the study on the acquisition of Neo Lithium. The witness testimony during the Neo Lithium study brought out how the discretionary nature of the current legislation has left Canada vulnerable. The informal decision-making process has had little transparency and accountability. As well, testimony stated how having a government department lead a national security review process, instead of those who are security experts, was concerning on how this could protect Canada's assets.

Similarly, Conservatives at the industry committee are prepared to do the hard work in amending this legislation to enforce the precautions the Liberal ministers consistently forgot to take.

To summarize, on these changes to the Investment Canada Act, it is a very difficult world right now, with unstable regimes in the world. The Liberals have been asleep for eight years, and this has left us vulnerable. This has been partially studied already at the industry committee, of which I was formerly a member.

Under the Prime Minister, Canada has failed to conduct full security reviews on acquisitions within Canada by Chinese regime state-owned enterprises. This is at the same time when the Prime Minister cannot find a business case for LNG while Germany and Japan are begging for it.

Conservatives will work hard to create jobs, bolster our allies and protect Canada's intellectual and resource assets. Conservatives want to ensure that this long-overdue update of the Investment Canada Act legislation features an automatic review system, as well as a net benefit analysis of any investment by a state-owned enterprise. This is just plain common sense. We would not wish to allow the entry of foreign state competitors into critical areas of Canada's security and economy.

Similarly, Conservatives will seek to allow the government to list and completely prohibit state-owned enterprises from countries with which Canada should not be doing business at this time. I am sure no constituent of mine would wish to see a Putin-backed enterprise buying into any Canadian company.

Let us ensure that this bill can draw that red line. We cannot have the uncertainty that would be created by selling off our critical mineral assets when we need these minerals for our modern world, including for electric batteries.

After eight years of blindfolds from the government on foreign acquisition of Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of Canadians, Conservatives at the industry committee will do what we can to ensure that this bill fully protects our economic and national security interests from nations that do not wish us well. We need to encourage investment, while at the same time protecting Canadian interests.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the necessity for this legislation, given the changes that have been happening, is extremely important. The member in her speech talked about the fact that things are different than they were 20 years ago or even just a few years ago. The reality is that, as we look to attract new investment and continue to open our country to investment from the world, we need to have secure legislation in place to ensure that the integrity of our economic system and our political system is kept in place.

I am wondering if the member can comment on how we can properly balance that and bring that investment into our country, investment like that in my neighbouring riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington, which is represented by a Conservative member, with the largest battery-manufacturing plant in North America. How do we ensure that we can have that proper balance in our country while also bringing in economic activity?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is part of why this legislation is very important. We also need to add in a few other things that Conservatives will be asking for when and if this moves forward, so that we can protect Canadian interests.

It really comes down to looking at the regimes with regard to state-owned enterprises. There were a number of recommendations that were made at the industry committee. Not all of those recommendations went into this act. That is one of the things we will be looking at. There was a lot of testimony that went into that.

Conservatives will be bringing forth other recommendations to actually make this even stronger.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I think we both agree that this bill needs to be improved. However, in my opinion, given the overly limited interpretation by law clerks in committee, any amendments that can be made are too often limited.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the government should introduce another bill to better control foreign investments in general, particularly with regard to retaining our corporate head offices, our economic levers and control of our resources.

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some parts of this bill that are very vague. As an example, the legislation does not make changes to the act's definition of a state-owned enterprise, and just that one piece, in itself, could be considered very vague.

I think we need to look at what recommendations for amendments are being brought forth by all parties. That work will, if this bill moves forward, happen at the committee stage, where all members can dig in the weeds, look at what recommendations everyone is bringing forth, assess them and go from there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that the member for Kelowna—Lake Country did on the industry committee's study on this issue, in terms of this act, in the last Parliament, which made nine recommendations. This bill addresses only two of those nine recommendations. Recommendation 1 from that report, which I think would address a lot of the concerns of members, was that the threshold for investments made by state-owned enterprises in Canada, for the review on national security or net benefit, be reduced from $415 million to zero.

I would like to know whether the member has any views on that aspect.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is something absolutely worth considering and it should really be considered in this.

As I said in my speech, we know that it is a very different time than it was 10 or 15 years ago. We need to be amending our laws and our legislation to better reflect what the current environment is, the current economic environment and safety precautions, the current situation in the world. Based on the current environment that we are seeing with some of these regimes that are in the world, which have made very public what some of their plans are, we need to take that into consideration when developing legislation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what should the number one job of a federal government be? I have always told my constituents that it is national security, our safety and security.

Last night, as I was preparing my remarks, I asked Dr. Google what the top priority should be for a national government. Lo and behold, up pops a website for Canada's federal government, which states, under “National Security”, “The first priority of the Government of Canada is to protect the safety and security of Canadians both at home and abroad.” That made me feel pretty good at first. I thought to myself that I was on the right track, and I was glad that the Liberal government places safety and security as its top priority. That made me happy. Unfortunately, I then felt disturbed when I started to think about it, because, as we have seen so much with the Liberal government, rhetoric and words are one thing, and doing is another.

Members might ask why. It is because I feel that so much of what the Liberal government and the Prime Minister do actually undermines the safety, security and protection of Canadians at home, within our borders.

The Liberals are weakening our justice system by removing mandatory minimums. There was a report recently in Vancouver that 40 or so criminals have done 6,000 crimes. That is the Liberal method, to catch and release. That is okay, I suppose, for fishing stocks, to catch a fish and let it go, but it is not good when it comes to criminals, when we have increased problems on transit with random attacks on people, and when a killer who is out on bail murders a police officer. This is not right. Canadians are not feeling protected at home by their justice system. It is a shame and a disgrace. It is not fulfilling the government's priority with respect to our security.

With respect to our national security, we have let our hair grow. Maybe that was okay back in the 1960s, but we have just let it go. We are thousands of troops short. We have obsolete equipment. The Liberal government said that it was not going to buy the F-35 fighter jets and instead decided to buy older planes, the F-18s, from the Australian air force. It has now decided that this is not working out so well and it had better get some new equipment. The Minister of National Defence has let things go with respect to our military.

I was also watching reports on Twitter and, big deal, Canada sent one tank to Ukraine. That was brought up in the House and the response was that it was actually four tanks, because three more are on the way. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are losing hundreds of tanks over there, but Canada does not have much to send because our cupboards are bare.

This is personal for me, because I was raised in a Royal Canadian Air Force family. I was born in Germany and lived in bases all throughout Canada. Even from a young age, my mind was on the military and our national defence. I also served in the military after finishing high school.

Our national defence is not a priority. I will say that categorically.

Bill C-34 is an attempt to address an important national security risk, namely identifying and responding to economic security threats from foreign investments. I think this is good. The Conservatives will be supporting its moving to second reading because it needs a lot more teeth.

Much of what we have seen, and what I have seen since being elected in 2019, is just rhetoric. It is smoke and mirrors to make it look like the Liberals are doing something when they are not.

November 9, 1989, is a day that I remember well, along with the months and years that followed. What happened? The Berlin Wall that separated East and West Germany began to be dismantled. Numerous countries had been under communist regimes. Many are now part of NATO. There have been great changes. It was quite amazing. People were set free from communism without shots being fired in Europe. There was euphoria. It seemed miraculous, and maybe it was.

I found, as I have gone in my communities and talked to people, that those who are most concerned about what is happening in Canada in terms of freedom and security are those from eastern Europe who used to be under communist regimes. They are very concerned about what they see. They can see through the bluster of the Liberal government.

The United States became the only undisputed superpower. Western countries, including Canada, let our militaries go to pot. However, the world has changed in the past 30 years. Russia has armed itself to the teeth, and we have seen an invasion. We are coming to the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Conservatives support the efforts to oppose it, as do the other parties.

There is even more of a danger happening, and this has emerged in Communist China. China is an economic and military superpower that wants to extend its economic, military and political power and influence. It is threatening its neighbours. It is expanding control.

I have been to China, and it is a beautiful country, but its autocratic communist government is suppressing its own population. There is a lot of concern worldwide and among our military partners, whether it be Five Eyes, the United States, the U.K. or other countries, about what we are doing in Canada.

China has a larger navy than the United States. Our military partners are wondering why we are giving a country, a military and economic superpower like China, full access to secrets, our people and surveillance. It is a problem. My other colleagues have mentioned some of the problems we have had, such as Huawei, which actually used technology from Nortel, a Canadian company.

It is a big concern. This just came out a few hours ago in The Globe and Mail. It said, “China employed a sophisticated strategy to disrupt Canada's democracy in the 2021 federal election campaign as Chinese diplomats and their proxies backed the re-election of Justin Trudeau's Liberals...and worked to defeat Conservative politicians”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The member cannot use the name of a member even in a quote.

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should have edited that quote.

Some of the technology has gotten into Canada Border Services, other security and RCMP. We need to change this. We need to protect Canadians and pass some of the amendments the Conservatives have brought forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that the former Conservative government signed a foreign investment protection act with China that protected its investments in the event that Canada wanted to change legislation or do things in the interests of security.

Can the hon. member reflect on what the future of FIPA might be now that China and other countries have shown their true colours?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017 there was a Chinese company called Hytera that purchased a B.C. company, Norsat. The Liberal minister of the day said that what was happening was no big deal. However, Hytera was brought up on 21 charges of espionage in the United States and banned from doing service; we invited them to do this.

We need to take care of business here and take our national security much more seriously.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We know foreign investment is important in a globalized economy.

In 2001, which was before China became a member of the World Trade Organization, Jacques Parizeau wrote, “We do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves.”

Unfortunately, weakening the Investment Canada Act has caused those levees to break. We agree that Bill C‑34 offers better protection, but it is not good enough.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we do a lot of trade with China. The imports and exports are very important for our economy.

This new bill should include the acquisitions of any foreign state-owned enterprise. We cannot just rely on the fact that a company is worth $500 million or more. Every company that is directly or indirectly managed by an autocratic government must be included in this bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of protecting Canadian workers or ensuring that they are at the forefront for investments, Conservatives have a long record of prioritizing foreign investors over Canadian workers. Does the member think that protecting Canadian jobs and workers should be at the forefront of any decision on the net benefit of a foreign investment in Canada?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party supports a strong economy and well-paying jobs for all Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity or anything else, in all parts of our country. That is key. However, we believe that we perhaps need to look for other sources and other purchasers, rather than state-run companies, for such things as strategic mines. That is for our own and our partners' national security.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recommendation number one in the industry committee's report, which unfortunately did not get picked up in Bill C-34, is that the threshold for a takeover of assets, or of corporate chairs, by a state-owned enterprise should be set to zero. This would require a deep review of any such acquisition.

Could my colleague comment on whether that is a gap in the bill that should be fixed?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with this recommendation. I believe I said it in French, but there should not be a threshold of $400 million or something before the review kicks in. It should start right at zero, not only for a company that is a new purchaser but also for acquisitions of another friendly company, a state-owned Canadian company, moving into purchasing in other strategic industries. I think any industry and purchases need to be considered.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take the floor today to talk about a very important subject for Canada. It is near and dear to my heart because of the significant ramifications it has for our political system. I will get to the somewhat shocking news we read in The Globe and Mail earlier today, but first I will talk a little about how this bill is lacking and what Conservatives would like to see at committee to strengthen this bill.

I will start with the motivation or what has been driving this. Why are we so concerned about the friends and insiders of the Liberal Party getting rich for the past eight years? This includes not just the government's Liberal friends who live in Canada but the ones who live in far-off lands as well.

I have a level of admiration for China because of its basic dictatorship, foreshadowing what these last eight years have been about. We have a Prime Minister who admires a foreign dictatorship, the People's Republic of China. Now, if the stories in The Globe and Mail are true, although I know the government likes to dismiss them as false, what has been discovered is very scary. This is that the Chinese Communist Party influenced the last two elections here in Canada.

What is worse is that the Prime Minister knew about this. This is our democracy. It is for the people who come to this room to determine the direction of our country, and I am deeply concerned about the influence of foreign actors. Conservatives support this bill going to committee so we can fix it. It needs to address that glaring hole of why things have been going the way they have in Canada. I believe any state-owned enterprise needs to have an analysis done on those transactions, especially for China.

The People's Republic of China has been gobbling up companies around the world. We do not have to look too far. If we look at Africa, we will see the influence it now has on those countries. Obviously, the Chinese Communist Party wants influence in Canada. It appears it already has influence with the government because it illegally supported the government in the last election by donating money to 11 candidates. We do not yet know who these candidates are. Is it the Prime Minister? Is it a cabinet minister? Is it a member of an opposition? There is no reason why we cannot find out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are extremely off topic right now, and if the member wants to go off topic, I would love to talk about Justice Rouleau's report that was just tabled. I would love to have a discussion about that right now. However, it is important that we stick to what is actually at hand, this piece of legislation, and not go off on tangents like the member is doing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would remind all members that the topic at hand is Bill C-34.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is about national security. I cannot think of a more important national security issue than a foreign country influencing our election. It is absolutely tied to this because we know that this is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is another point of order by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member appears to be challenging your ruling. If that is the case, he should challenge the Chair, and we will allow that process to take place. It is incumbent upon all members to respect the position of the Chair and your authority. You have made a ruling on this, and now the member is challenging it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will again remind everybody that we are speaking to Bill C-34. While we do give a lot of leeway on what we debate and discuss in this chamber, I would remind the member to come back to the bill at hand.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging the authority of your chair. How this ties into the Republic of China is that it is influencing our elections, and the bill is about stopping the influence of countries like that in our economy. That is the connection. It is as clear as day.

The member across the way is engaging in distraction, suggesting that it is somehow wrong to talk about the influence China has had on two elections. Eleven candidates received illegal donations, and we have yet to find out who these individuals are. Who is protecting those 11 individuals? What are they hiding? We know this is coming from a country we have concerns with.

The bill would try to stop the undue influence on our economy, and there are reports out today saying that this country went one step further. We know that the People's Republic of China is influencing other countries through economic purchases in their economies. However, it just bypassed it all and bought a government with illegal donations, hiring people to work in elections and then sending those volunteers off to work on Liberal-friendly campaigns. Those are the reports in The Globe and Mail that are so troubling. It goes to the root of why we are are here.

Why does this all matter? We are supposed to be making choices for the benefit of this country, not for a foreign country that is, for the time being, in bed with one of the parties in Canada.

The bill needs to be strengthened. We need to do a net analysis on all transactions from the People's Republic of China. We have to bring the threshold down to zero. These are recommendations we heard at committee, and when the bill does finally get to committee, I hope we do add that. We need to add teeth to the bill.

There are a couple of things that are done well in the bill so far. One is the increase in penalties, because of inflation of all things. Everything is getting hurt by inflation. However, the bill would increase the penalties given to companies that would break this proposed act, and we are happy to note that increase. There are other common-sense things we can do to protect our economy from being bought out by the People's Republic of China.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. The bill we are discussing is on the Investment Canada Act and whether we need to update it given some changes in the world.

I will ask a question that I asked earlier of a Conservative member.

Increasingly, foreign investors see the Canadian health sector as place in which they can invest. We have the example of Anbang, a Chinese insurance company that was later nationalized or seized by the Chinese government, which is a major investor in long-term care homes in my province. I wonder if the member agrees with us in the New Democratic Party that we need to update this piece of legislation before us to take into account investments like these, which put the health of Canadians at risk.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right on the sector aspect of the bill. The minister is the one who would decides what sectors would be exempt and the ones that would be included in this, which is another issue we have with the bill. Things can change in the regulations without a vote in this place. However, we can see where one might pick one sector over another for political benefit. This is what I believe we have in Canada right now, with the government definitely benefiting from a close and tight relationship with the Government of China and the influence it is trying to enact on our people and our economy. That is what we need to improve on.

I really look forward to getting the bill to committee so that we can put some teeth into it to do the net benefit analysis on transactions so we can see, in a transparent way, up or down, what is taking place out there and whether there are purchases of crucial parts of our economy.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the latest data released, last year, there were 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion. Only eight of those projects were reviewed. With this bill, that number would increase to 24, which is barely 2% of foreign investment projects. Does my colleague think that is enough?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not enough. We need to get it down to zero dollars.

This is the virtual signalling that we have from the Liberals. Every day they talk a big game, but when they actually introduce something that is supposed to counter or to do what they have talked about, it does not. That is the most frustrating thing about being here in Ottawa. They are all talk and no action.

Here is an example where we could actually strengthen our country, through this, to make sure that purchases from foreign state enterprises are scrutizined. For whatever reason, the Liberals do not want that scrutiny. One must ask why. Why would they be hiding from the scrutiny that would come from having that transparent process, where every transaction, not even just over a dollar amount but anything more than zero, would trigger the net benefit analysis? I hope our colleagues in the Bloc would support us at committee to strengthen these measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands seems to be confused around what the bill is about.

It is about the issue of national security and doing national security reviews of takeovers. There is a long record of the government not approving national security reviews for takeovers, such as Hytera, which was charged with espionage in the United States; the Tanco Mine; and many others, and having the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency actually buy equipment from those entities.

The security issue of state-owned enterprises and interference in our country's economy and elections is what the issue is all about. I would like to give the member an opportunity to clarify a little more what the member for Kingston and the Islands seemed to be so confused about.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Liberal members are confused at all. They know exactly what they are doing. They are helping a foreign state actor influence our economy and now our elections. To that point, we have an example.

In 2020, the Department of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to the Chinese-based company Nuctech to supply X-ray equipment to, of all places, embassies. This is not a mistake. They are doing this on purpose. The only reason why this would be taking place is to let a foreign state actor into our embassies, to scan documents and articles going into embassies across the world. This is not incompetence; it is by design.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I even quickly put on a tie because I was a little disappointed with the comments from the member for South Shore—St. Margarets in relation to the suggestion that any member of the House would somehow be involved with undermining Canadian democracy or the Canadian economy to any extent.

I do not know where it is exactly in the procedural rules, but I think that would perhaps be a little unwarranted. I am wondering if you might be able to address that comment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are getting into debate. I will confer with the table, but I do not think that is a point of order.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the world has changed in recent years. It is a reality that all people in this place need to confront themselves with on behalf of their constituents. What I mean by saying that the world has changed is that there are more state actors or other countries that are becoming increasingly hostile to the interests of our country and our constituents.

As this is happening, we need to remind ourselves that our duty in this place is to protect our national sovereignty so that our constituents have bright, prosperous and safe futures, free from persecution, free from the influence of other nations that do not share our country's values of freedom, liberty, personal opportunity and diversity. These are all things we have to work really hard to maintain.

Maintaining and defending Canada's national sovereignty is a big job. There are a lot of different aspects. There is maintaining our national defence and our defensive capacity. The government really has not done a good job of that, frankly.

What we are debating today is whether we have adequate protections for our economy, in terms of protecting our national sovereignty.

When we think about hostile nation-states wanting to exert influence on our country, sometimes we are tempted to think about that problem in really Hollywood-like terms, with planes coming in and invading our country. We have, in recent days, had incursions into our airspace, which sort of proves my point further.

One of the big ways our national sovereignty has been threatened is by the lack of a legal framework and tools that prevent hostile state actors from influencing our economy in negative ways.

What I mean by that are things like being able to purchase major components of Canada's natural resources, particularly critical minerals like lithium, or even hostile state actors being able to own intellectual property on really important things for protecting national sovereignty in the future like, let us say, quantum computing.

We have a duty in this place to ensure that, with respect to nations that do not share our values but, in fact, show hostility, aggression and a desire to erode Canada's sovereignty, we put in place safeguards to prevent them from doing so.

What I think this Liberal government has done with this bill is to try to distract Canadians. They are trying to say “oh, here is a bill that might do some things”, but it really does not get to the heart of the fact that, as I have said, the world has changed and that, given that, we need to have very strong protections to ensure our sovereignty is protected. It needs protection in terms of hostile state actors influencing our economy or, in fact, even taking resources, intellectual property or other things back to their nations that could, in turn, be used to threaten our country and the people we all represent.

I do not think this bill is adequate at all. I want to talk about why, and what the government should be doing to protect our sovereignty, in terms of these economic measures.

Right now, if a state-owned enterprise, a company that is owned, in part or wholly, by another government, another country, wants to buy, let us say, a mine or something like that, that transaction should be subject to a review, both in terms of national security and in terms of whether this transaction is in the best interests of Canadians.

What this bill wants to do is take away the weak, inadequate process that exists right now, and instead of having it go through a cabinet process, where there are people from across the country, different portfolios, different lenses, looking at this, to put all that power into one minister.

I have a big concern with the government, given what it did with SNC-Lavalin. When the Prime Minister was confronted with a cabinet minister who did her job and said, “Whoa, I am not doing this”, he just shunted her aside and replaced her with a minister who was more acquiescent.

I am very hesitant to give the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, power here. Let us say he is under the influence of other nations or under lobbying influence, as we saw in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. If he is faced with that type of pressure again, I do not think he has the chops to stand firm in the best interests of Canadians because he has proven otherwise.

With this bill, the fact that issues would not go to cabinet waters down the process, which should be of grave concern to all Canadians. Certainly an amendment should be considered to remove that process. They should go to cabinet. I cannot understand why they would not.

The other thing to note is that because the world has changed, we know there are countries and state actors that employ this type of capital, like state-owned enterprises, to try to purchase major parts of the Canadian economy. There is a really high threshold in terms of dollar value for what would trigger a review under the current process. For certain countries, I feel that threshold should be zero.

There are some countries that we know are acting against the interests of Canadians and are arguably challenging our sovereignty. Any time those countries want to buy up some of our critical resources or critical intellectual property, there should be an automatic national security review to review whether this is in the best interests of the country. Then parliamentarians and the government can show accountability to our constituents and show that we are not just letting countries be hostile to our country by buying up parts of it. I think that threshold should be zero, and it should be amended in this bill.

There should also be a list of countries that have shown aggression and hostility to this country or to our allies so that they automatically get a review. If they are on this list, there is automatically a review for this type of transaction. That should also be an amendment in this bill.

The other thing to note is that the bill talks about just looking at acquisitions of companies. It is not looking at the acquisition of assets. What do I mean by that? I know there have been a lot of concerns about certain countries that have been hostile to Canada buying up farmland in Canada or buying up critical mines that produce things like lithium. This is of course a substance used in really important things like batteries. It is a really rare earth mineral, and it is important we retain sovereignty of it. If these hostile state actors are trying to avoid scrutiny by our government through a back door, there should be an asset review.

I want to circle back to why I do not think power should be consolidated in the hands of the minister. This week, our Ethics Commissioner said in an article, “The act has been there for 17 years for God’s sake”. He essentially talks about the Prime Minister, the cabinet and a lot of members in the Liberal Party not having a moral compass to know what is right and wrong, not holding the cabinet to account and letting this leader continue.

This is why the bill needs to be amended. There is too much power concentrated in a group of people who think they can get away with things that are in their best interest. When we are talking about maintaining national sovereignty, we need more safeguards and not less for these types of economic transactions.

In closing, I want to talk about what my colleague from Saskatchewan said. This morning, there was a report that said the Chinese Communist Party was directly influencing elections here in Canada. Our sovereignty is under threat, and we should be ensuring strict safeguards. We should be acknowledging the world has changed and that our constituents deserve greater levels of protection, and should be looking at how assets might be produced or taken from Canada and potentially used against us in the future.

I am worried that because this bill does so little and waters down the fiduciary authority of cabinet to look at these transactions, we are putting ourselves in a more precarious position as opposed to a stronger position, particularly given the ethical lapses of the government and particularly given the inability of the Liberal backbenchers to stand up and hold their ministers, who give contracts to their friends, to account. The Prime Minister has had two ethics violations. How is he still the leader of their party? Because of the lack of moral compass the Ethics Commissioner talked about, there need to be amendments to this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As much as we really like having people join us in the chamber, they cannot applaud or react to what is happening on the floor of the House of Commons. However, I thank them for joining us here today.

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, April 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if you canvass the House, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at the start of Private Members' Business hour.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.