Bill C-34 (Historical)

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[The Acting Speaker, John Nater]

I wish to inform the House that, due to an administrative error, there is a portion of text missing in the printed version of the Notice Paper for report stage of Motion No. 1 in relation to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

The missing text should appear at the beginning of part (b) of the motion. The text appears correctly in the electronic version, which is published on our website. A corrected printed version of the Order Paper and Notice Paper is available at the table.

I regret any inconvenience this may have caused hon. members.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, John Nater]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-34. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-34, in Clause 4, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 3 with the following:

“notice for review under section 15 within 45 days after the certified date referred to in paragraph (a) or within the prescribed period,”

(b) by adding after line 16 on page 3 the following:

“(4) Paragraph 13(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) in a case where the receipt contains the advice referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), no notice for review is sent to the non-Canadian pursuant to section 15 within 45 days after the certified date referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or within the prescribed period.”.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-34, in Clause 8, be amended

(a) by replacing line 11 on page 5 with the following:

“8 Paragraphs 17(2)(b) and (c) of the Act are replaced by the”

(b) by adding after line 17 on page 5 the following:

“(c) in the case of an investment reviewable pursuant to section 15, forthwith on receipt of a notice for review referred to in subparagraph 15(1)(b)(ii) or paragraph 15(2)(d).”

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

moved:

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-34. We were supposed to be debating it a few hours ago, but instead the Conservatives, in their reckless wisdom, thought it would be better to amplify their party's position on the Canada infrastructure bank, which, as I pointed out in my debate, is totally and absolutely bizarre.

Before I go on to the actual debate on the amendments, I have an observation and a plea for my Conservative friends.

Canadians were disappointed when the Conservatives flip-flopped on the price on pollution, a fairly significant flip-flop. I would encourage them to do another flip-flop on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Canadians would benefit immensely if they were to do that, so I highly recommend that.

I am glad that we are finally on this debate. It is important to recognize that the last time the Investment Canada was amended was maybe 12 or 14 years ago, I believe. A great deal has taken place since then.

We can talk about things such as foreign interference. Foreign interference takes place in many different ways. One of those ways is through investments, significant investments.

When we think of investments, we have to think of it in two ways. There are those who will invest in Canada to get a rate of return. They are not necessarily a majority; they are not taking ownership, if I can put it that way.

Then there are investments in which ownership has taken over. I think most Canadians, including myself, have a great deal of concern when that takes place. Whether we are debating the amendments or the legislation itself, we have to be very careful to recognize that we are debating ways in which we can modernize the Investment Canada Act.

I want to focus on technological changes, such as the development of AI and the impact that this has on society.

We have incredible companies throughout the country. We have endless minerals and potential for development and extraction. Many minerals that are in exceptionally high demand can be found in Canada. We have companies that are leading the world in certain sectors, such as anything related to companies that are technologically advanced, AI being one of those.

As a government, we have been putting a great deal of focus on green jobs, recognizing the not millions, not even billions but close to a trillion dollars of investment around the world. We have to be very much aware of that. We have to realize that Canada has a role to play. We need to be in a position to protect our industries, the AI and the technological advancements that are taking place today. That is why we have things such as copyrights and patents.

We do not want a company from abroad coming into Canada, buying something and then taking it out of Canada. Canada loses out because of that leading technology that was part of a company.

This is why it is important we see this legislation pass. It would modernize the Investment Canada Act.

Let us think of this with respect to national security reviews, how we look at certain aspects of industries, anything from military weapons development to Internet or artificial intelligence being developed in Canada, to see if it is in Canada's best interest. It is not in Canada's best interest to accept all international investments coming into our country.

At times, as a government, we want to be in a position to put in some constraints, take specific actions that will protect Canadian industries and Canadians as a whole. It also ensures the type of growth we want to promote and encourage in certain sectors. In fact, we often provide incentives for those industries.

Canada, through the many trade agreements we have signed off on in the last number of years, has created opportunities, not only for investment outside of Canada but also for investment to come into the country. Canada, as a result of our many trade agreements and our reputation around the world, is a great place to invest.

Billions of dollars every year enter our country for a multitude of reasons. Let there be no doubt that a lot of it is because of Canada's reputation in the world as being a safe place to invest. At the end of the day, it's those and other investments that we have to be aware of with respect to how they impact Canadian jobs, not only for today, those good, hard-working middle class-type jobs, to ensure we protect them well into the future.

This legislation would empower the minister and different areas of the department to do just that. It would provide a higher sense of security and ensure that the best interests of Canadians are better served. That is what I like about the legislation, and it is very timely. As we continue to grow in commerce throughout the world, we have to ensure we have the regulations and laws in place to protect the population from a wide spectrum of things that could come about.

I look to my colleagues across. Instead of filibustering the legislation by doing what they did earlier, we could have been debating this. I could have been giving this speech over three hours ago. It would have been nice to have seen this legislation possibly pass before question period, as we are at report stage; it still has to go through third reading. We know that is not going to happen now because they were successful with their three-hour filibuster. However, they were the ones who made with that decision.

I hope members across the way will see the value of the legislation for what it is. It is about ensuring that Canada is well positioned, from a worldwide perspective, on investments, so we are able to better create and promote industries in Canada, thereby keeping the jobs we have and growing our economy well into the future by providing well-quality jobs for our middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the parliamentary secretary's remarks on the Investment Canada Act changes, and I would like to ask a question. What we are debating here today is the report stage and some amendments. Conservatives have put forward a particular amendment that would restore cabinet decision-making in reviewing foreign investment. This bill would actually take that out of section 15.

I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary thinks that cabinet decision-making is of value, or whether we should just have a lot of little independent ministers who could run the roost over making individual decisions on whether an investment is good for Canada or not, without the input of their colleagues, including their colleagues from Quebec or other parts of the country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not on the committee, and I suspect the member was on the committee. I understand there were a number of amendments being proposed. One of them required unanimous consent, which it did not get. That is encouraging, and hopefully we will see some amendments.

I do not know offhand whether the member is going to get the opportunity to explain his perspective on his amendment. I am not going to predetermine what the position of the government would be on it, but I can assure the member that, as a government, we are very much concerned about making sure we get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair.

The Investment Canada Act was in need of a review, especially when one thinks of businesses in the context of COVID‑19, like our aerospace businesses. There is an issue. Are we protecting them enough? I do not think we talked enough about thresholds at committee. The government did not exactly show it was open to reviewing these thresholds.

At what point do we start an inquiry? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say. Should we have dug deeper into this to make sure we could protect our SMEs, which are the backbone of the Quebec and Canadian economy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like the province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba has a very healthy aerospace industry. The technology is absolutely incredible. When we start to take a look at things such as computer components and the whole area of AI, I suspect there are companies outside Canada that would dearly love to be able to get their hands on some of this information, and they may not necessarily want to keep those good-quality jobs in communities. That is one of the reasons it was important we bring forward legislation of this nature. Again, I am a bit reluctant to provide comment on the real details of it. If the member has some very specific questions, he might be best advised to check with the minister in question.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair.

I have a specific question for the parliamentary secretary. The former minister of industry, who was a Liberal, allowed the takeover of Zellers by the American conglomerate Target. Subsequently, we saw the loss of all the Zellers stores across Canada, which included union jobs and benefits, and they actually had a small profit. Target then closed all shops in Canada. Does he regret the minister's decision at that time to allow the takeover to take place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does have an obligation to review things.

I think back to 10 years ago, and things do change. We could ask how many dollar stores, such as Dollar Tree, were around at the turn of the century and where they are today. Even stores like Giant Tiger have popped up in more communities. I would suggest there are probably more of them than there were Zellers stores.

There is a wide spectrum of things that have to be taken into account that the government is ultimately responsible for. The biggest concern I had was when Loblaws assumed Shoppers 10 years or so ago. That was something I do not know whether I would have approved of. With respect to the Target and Zellers stores, I just do not know enough about the details. All I do know is that there seems to be a lot of retail competition, especially if we factor in the advancement of the Internet.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating Bill 34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, at report stage. We are dealing with a new amendment to this bill from the Conservative side of the House, as well as some housekeeping amendments from the government side.

To make sure everybody watching understands what the Investment Canada Act is about, it deals with the acquisition of Canadian companies by foreign entities: companies and governments that come to Canada to try to acquire our businesses. There is a government process, through Investment Canada, that these entities need to go through with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and cabinet. Through the bill before us, cabinet would be removed from the process. I will speak to this in a moment.

Wayne Gretzky, whom I know everybody here admires, said, “You miss 100% of the shots you don't take”, and this bill fits that description. While it would make administrative amendments and speed up the process a little, it missed the opportunity to look at what is happening in the Canadian economy and deal with the increasing acquisitions of assets and businesses of various sizes, from small businesses worth a few million dollars up to minerals rights and large corporations, by states that are hostile to us. As has been said before, it has been 14 years since the act was amended. A lot has changed in the world, in particular around the way that state-owned enterprises have become extraterritorial in taking over companies around the world for their own economic interests. The Conservatives' challenge with the bill is that it thinks small. It did not use this opportunity to take a shot on net and score a goal by recognizing the change in the global economy and what is happening with the outright sales of Canadian businesses and assets to hostile states.

The minister is the minister of broken bills, which is why we are having to make more amendments to this one. On his other bill, Bill C-27, after a year and a half, he has had to make amendments. Perhaps if he had spent more time here in Canada understanding what was going on, he might have produced better legislation. The Liberals missed the chance to think big and understand what is going on in our economy. What is going on in our economy is what I call the Chinese government cold war. We are in a new cold war. It is not one of bombs and the military in that sense; it is the silent takeover of the economic assets of other countries. This is how China is gaining influence all around the world. We all know about the election interference issues, but those things are perhaps a little more obvious than this is to Canadians, this creeping strategic control by the Communist Party of China of Canada's assets and those of other countries. Other countries have put mechanisms in place within their investment acts to recognize this and prevent it. The bill, as it was introduced in the House and debated at second reading, did not contain any of that.

Small businesses in my riding, such as lobster buyers, are $2-million businesses being bought for $10 million by China. The Chinese government owns a number of lobster businesses in my riding. It is how it is getting control of our seafood assets behind the door. It is doing the same in agriculture. It is buying land and farms in western Canada and mineral rights in our land. It is buying more obvious things, which I will speak to. It is buying companies like the only producing lithium mine in Canada. Therefore, Bill 34 missed a lot and would just make small administrative changes.

The Communist Party of China cold war's being ignored in Canada might be out of incompetence, but it also could be the case, as we know, that the Prime Minister believes that China is his most admired country, so maybe it is more strategic. Let us take a look at the Liberal government's record on this issue.

In 2017, the Liberal government allowed a telecom company from B.C. called Norsat to be acquired by a company called Hytera, which is Chinese-based. Hytera does not make any money. Conservatives demanded, at the time, a full national security review. The Liberal minister of the day refused to do one and approved the acquisition. Lo and behold, in 2022, Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States and was banned from doing business there, but only eight months later, the RCMP in Canada, shockingly, bought telecommunications equipment from Hytera to put in its communications system. When I asked the RCMP, at the industry committee, because it was in all the newspapers, whether its members were aware that eight months before, Hytera had done this and been banned in the U.S., the RCMP, shockingly, said no.

I referred earlier to the Tanco mine, our only producing lithium mine, which was bought by the Sinomine Resource Group, a Chinese-owned mining company. Every ounce of that lithium in our critical minerals industry goes to China.

The record on this is very awkward for the government to hear, but it is a growing concern. It did not take those things into consideration in drafting the bill before us, As a responsible opposition to His Majesty, the Conservatives proposed a number of amendments in committee, and thanks to the support of the other two opposition parties amidst the objections of the Liberals, we made some significant amendments. Those amendments include that with any state-owned enterprise from a country that does not have a bilateral trade relationship with Canada, the threshold for review by the Government of Canada would now be zero dollars. Any transaction over zero dollars would be reviewed, compared to the threshold now, which is $512 million. China is buying a lot of assets for under $512 million, and the threshold would now be zero. The same would apply for a new concept we added, which is that all asset sales would need to be included in that test with a state-owned enterprise.

Today, we are also taking this one step further by saying that the minister has made yet another error. That error was trying to consolidate all his power and ignore his cabinet colleagues. The bill would change the Investment Canada Act process that requires that at the beginning, when an acquisition is made, the minister take his recommendation on how far to go with a national security and net benefit review into a study. The bill before us says that he would not have to do that anymore and that he could decide on his own, that at the end of the process, whatever the results are, he would come back and say he will decide whether or not he goes to cabinet with the results.

Removing cabinet from the decision-making process would mean that we would not get the breadth of experience of people around the cabinet table and that we also would not get the breadth of experience from regional perspectives. For example, there have been companies bought in Quebec. If an industry minister is from Ontario and our public safety minister is from out west, they would make the decision on their own without any input from Quebec. I suspect that the Bloc Québécois would be opposed to that issue and would want to see Quebec representation in those decision-making processes, but the bill before us has the potential to eliminate that part of it.

We are proposing common sense Conservative amendments, as we did in committee. Thankfully we upped the ante of the bill and made it more than an administrative bill such that it would deal with the serious international challenges we had, through the four amendments that were accepted. By the way, there are two national tests in there. One is on national security and the other is on the net benefit to Canada. Conservatives in committee added a third: if a company has been convicted of bribery or corruption, the minister would now have to take that into consideration in deciding whether to approve the acquisition. It would add much benefit, but, for some reason, Liberals did not think it was worthy when they voted against it.

We believe that Conservatives have improved the bill dramatically. We are trying to improve it again in the spirit of good public policy for Canada and protecting our economy against hostile interests, which the Liberals seem not to care about. I urge the House, including all members from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the government, to recognize that cabinet's decision-making process is essential to getting the full breadth of things, and I urge members to vote for our amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we recognize that foreign interference takes many different forms. One of them is through investments. I am glad that it appears, from what I can tell, the members of the Conservative Party are in fact supporting the principle of the legislation.

That being said, I anticipate that the Conservative Party would like to see this legislation pass through all readings before Christmas. Is that a fair assessment?

[An hon. member]

What year?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues, in response to that, asked, “What year?” That is funny.

Yes, absolutely, the principle of the bill originally was an improvement of the current Investment Canada Act. We have improved it dramatically over what the government presented, so obviously we will be voting for the amendments we made to improve the bill. We will have a robust debate at both report stage and third reading to give members a chance to speak about this important strategic issue for Canada.

I hope government members will support my amendment today to ensure that we return to cabinet decision-making processes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, who is my Standing Committee on Industry and Technology co-chair. I have to say that I am liking him more and more. We have been working together for a good year now, and I appreciate how thorough he is and how creative he can be. He stands up for small businesses, and he has a good understanding of Quebec's economy.

The member proposed an amendment. My immediate reaction is that I am in favour of the minister having enough time to really think things through if necessary. It is no good announcing public consequences before doing due diligence. I would like to give him a chance to go into more detail about his amendment. Maybe I will give him one last chance to convince me that, from a Quebec point of view, this amendment makes sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue provides a lot of great input at the industry committee, and I appreciate that we have a lot of thoughtful discussions.

I agree that we should not create artificial time when we are dealing with very critical acquisitions. Whether it is a private sector company from around the world taking over Rona, for example, or a state-owned enterprise, the minister needs to not be restricted by arbitrary timelines so we can get the adequate national security net benefit and can analyze whether they have been convicted of corruption or bribery, thanks to the Conservatives, who put that in. Those are considerations the government should review in a thorough manner, not necessarily feeling that it has to rush things through.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague works really hard at committee and comes well prepared.

I understand the amendment the member is putting forth right now with regard to the consolidation of the minister's powers and not having secondary support from cabinet. Maybe the member wants to elaborate more on that. Is this because of the previous Conservative industry minister, Maxime Bernier? Is that what this amendment is about? Is it a Maxime Bernier amendment?

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

Mr. Speaker, no, I named this the Navdeep Bains amendment, as he did not review anything that went before him, and particularly not large companies from China. He approved them all without national security briefs. Now we know why Navdeep Bains did that: It was so he could secure himself a big, fat job on Bay Street, first with CIBC and now with the most expensive telephone provider in the world, Rogers, where he sits atop the tower talking about the things he used to regulate and let through. It is shocking, really, that Liberals would sell themselves for a job.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the acquisitions that I wish had been reviewed, which I do not think Bill C-34, even with amendments, would catch, was Paper Excellence buying up the pulp and paper mills of this country: all of Catalyst, all of Resolute and, in the member's home province, starting with Northern Pulp. It looks like it was all financed by the China Development Bank. What does the member think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, if an acquisition is financed or controlled by a Chinese entity, thanks to the Conservatives, there is now a change to the act that says anything over zero dollars is reviewable by Investment Canada.

I appreciate the hon. member for bringing that up. It gave me the opportunity to once again explain how important our amendment and improvement of the act are when looking out for those things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the interpreters that I will not try to fit my speech into the six minutes, although I think I could. The fact that I will not have to take questions immediately afterwards may save me from getting a question like the one my colleague from Windsor West asked. I will prepare accordingly.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34, which has just passed an important milestone. I understand that my colleagues have identified other amendments at this stage, and I will inform the House of the Bloc Québécois's position in due course.

This bill represents the first substantial review of the Investment Canada Act since 2009, when the government introduced a mechanism for assessing the national security implications of foreign investments. Essentially, it aims to strengthen the government's powers to monitor foreign investments that could compromise Canada's national security.

Bill C‑34 introduces seven major changes: a new requirement to provide notice of certain investments prior to their implementation in designated sectors; ministerial authorization to extend national security reviews of investments; harsher penalties for contraventions; ministerial authorization to impose conditions prior to the national security review period; ministerial authorization to allow undertakings that mitigate national security risks; improved information disclosure with international counterparts; and new rules to protect information in the course of judicial reviews.

These undeniably necessary changes reflect the logical evolution of an increasingly interconnected world. Foreign investment plays a vital role in economic development, not only in Canada, but also, and especially, in Quebec.

Over the past few months, the members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology examined several important issues related to these foreign investments. We held no less than 12 meetings, during which we heard from nearly 20 witnesses. Their testimony informed our debates and contributed to our collective understanding. We heard valid concerns about the potential vulnerability of our businesses and our sovereignty to ill-intentioned foreign investments. This strengthened our conviction that Bill C‑34 is an important first step.

When it came time to consider each member's amendments, we each addressed aspects that seemed important to us. I was particularly anxious to ensure that Quebec's economy would not be hurt. I thought about several situations where investments shaped Quebec. I wish the federal government had done some thinking as well, in response to the recommendations of the Bélanger-Campeau commission, and that it had opened up certain sections of the act to make amendments to better protect Quebec's leading companies.

The Conservatives tried to make changes that probably would have had disastrous consequences for Quebec's aerospace industry. They suggested drastically limiting the ability of foreign state-owned enterprises to invest in critical sectors and authorizing such operations only with the members of the anglophone Five Eyes, meaning the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

Let us look at the practical consequences of the Conservatives' proposal. Take, for example, the takeover of Bombardier's C Series by Airbus. That transaction, which was completed successfully, is critical to our aerospace cluster. Airbus is a company owned by the French and German governments, which are neither American nor anglophone. If amendments CPC-5 and CPC-6 had been in effect at the time, that transaction would have been prohibited, which would have had disastrous consequences for our aerospace sector. That is what the Conservatives' aerospace policies are like at times.

I appreciated the government's openness to considering clarifying that purchasing a company's assets is the same as purchasing the company itself, and so the transaction is subject to the act. This clarification was necessary, especially when it comes to intangible assets such as intellectual property patents, where there was a gap in the previous legislation. It is crucial that our laws protect the national interest, including intellectual property.

On some amendments, our position was more nuanced. I supported the idea of taking intellectual property into account during reviews of transactions, because it enhances our national security and protects our strategic assets.

However, we must keep in mind that Bill C‑34 seeks mainly to align our security policies with those of the United States, an essential prerequisite for Canada to be included in the U.S. industrial modernization strategy, in particular the development of electrification.

The proof is that, immediately after Bill C-34 was introduced, the Americans lifted the most protectionist measures through the Inflation Reduction Act, which Joe Biden announced just before his visit to Ottawa.

Restrictions remain in future incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles, but these provisions will only come into effect later, when current investments have increased the supply of cars enough to meet demand. There is every indication that they will harmonize this with the industrial component.

As a result, Canada's agreements with the U.S. include specific provisions on personal information in the defence sector, allowing Canadian companies to bid on Pentagon contracts for the first time since 1956. Since these contracts give access to U.S. defence secrets, the U.S. government asks for information on our companies' personnel in order to conduct security checks. We have to be careful not to lose this privilege.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that other ideas emerged during our work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I will continue my speech after question period.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C‑34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some of the other ideas that emerged during the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. One of the most important changes for which the Bloc Québécois vigorously advocated involves transparency provisions.

I know how important transparency is to you, Mr. Speaker. We could have included other provisions, but I sense that you are particularly attentive to transparency. It is an important concern that witnesses have mentioned, and it has been reflected in the technical documents that have been presented to us.

I stressed the need for greater transparency in the national security decision-making mechanisms. I went to the right school, some might say, and I think I have colleagues who have influenced me, in particular the member for Joliette, whom I would like to recognize.

This includes more information from agencies responsible for decisions related to national security. It is a legitimate request to want to understand how the decisions are made and what criteria are taken into account.

The minister's obligation to publicly present his or her decisions is significant progress in fostering public understanding. This will allow citizens, businesses and stakeholders to better understand the process and the motivations underlying national security decisions.

We remain firmly committed to acting in the best interest of the Quebec nation, ensuring that our national interests are preserved in harmony with our democratic values and our quest for an open and transparent governance.

We think it is a shame that the government restricted and limited the amendments to Bill C‑34 to the single issue of national security related to foreign investments.

I think there was some consensus around the table with respect to the fact that the government missed an opportunity to review the thresholds for mergers and acquisitions, especially when it comes to guaranteeing that the foreign investments have a net benefit for Canada.

We therefore support this bill and will continue to demand loud and clear that the government introduce a new bill to also review the other sections of the Investment Canada Act.

That said, it was high time to address national security issues related to foreign investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member just now and before question period, and my primary concern is dealing with foreign interference, which, as I said previously, takes many different forms. What we are debating today is from an investor's perspective, and that is the reason we need to modernize the act after 14 years, given AI and technology, to protect our industries here in Canada and to make sure that interests here are served, first and foremost.

I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts with regard to the passage of the legislation. Would the Bloc like to see any other things in the bill apart from the amendments we are debating today?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in support of the bill. However, the main amendments that we wanted to include were not compatible with the bill. From the outset, when we were talking about modernizing the Investment Canada Act, the Liberals should have included this notion of revising thresholds.

Let us take COVID‑19, for example, with our airlines. When the value of our airlines plummeted to the point where they finally fell below the mandatory review threshold, which was triggered, foreign companies—Chinese, American and others—were able to buy up flagships like Air Transat for a song.

The consequences would have been disastrous. What we need to do with the Investment Canada Act is to go deeper into the issue of thresholds. All the same, I am delighted that transparency has increased. Let us take the example of Lowe's, a classic in Quebec, with the sale of Rona. We never knew what the compromises were. Five years on, we realize that these compromises may not have been respected.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a good speech.

Before question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government said that Canada was a good place for investors.

However, investors keep leaving. There are a lot of rules, like those arising from the passage of Bill C‑69, the carbon tax is too high, and we have measures that do not exist in other countries.

Why is there nothing in this bill to deal with that problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for speaking French and for the effort that she makes. I commend her for that.

That is indeed a major problem. How can we bring in foreign capital to grow our economy? What was of particular interest to me in the context, and I had the support of my Conservative colleagues in that regard, was how to regulate critical and strategic minerals, particularly when it comes to the electrification of transport. How can we be sure to maintain ownership of our critical resources for the sake of national security? About 30 of them were targeted, including lithium.

Imagine if our companies had to depend on Chinese lithium. In theory, there have been acquisitions by Canadian companies, but they were overseas and bought back by the Chinese. We were told that that was of no value, so there was no need to conduct a review under the Investment Canada Act. Imagine that this happens and we do not take action. I think that we would want to protect our interests in such a situation.

When it comes to the electrification of transport in the new economy, we need ownership of our resources. If we want people to invest here, then we need to own our resources.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up excellent points. I wonder what he thinks about the fact that, in natural resources, we have had Vale, Rio Tinto, Xstrata and United States Steel take over the Canadian companies Inco, Alcan, Falconbridge and Stelco. What happened? We gave up all of our natural resources to foreign companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers is indeed investing heavily at the end of the supply chain.

We are happy to see companies like Stellantis and Northvolt investing here, but we are at the end of the supply chain. No one is investing at the beginning, in other words, close to our mining companies, so we can protect our resources. We need to unblock the entire supply chain to ensure that we put lithium from Abitibi—Témiscamingue or Quebec in our cars instead of Chinese lithium.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, as well as to the amendments being proposed today, amendments that are actually pretty important to consider. I will be considering them, as will the NDP.

The amendments pertain to the independence of the minister, in particular where the minister could have ultimate authority with less cabinet oversight. As industry critic for about 17 of my 21 years here, I can think of some deals that were not even looked at by certain ministers. I am not sure whether this would solve it, because I know they actually brought some of these things to the cabinet table in successive Conservative and Liberal governments and they were allowed to be taken over.

The reason I asked my previous question about natural resources, and I want to touch a little on that, is that the companies in the mining industry that are now owned by foreign conglomerates used to be Canadian champions. Now, the battery supply and different minerals necessary for electrification of vehicles in our corner of the world are very much affected by that. It is the same with the independence. What is also important and has not been taken much into account by either of these two parties in the last number of years is the number of tax subsidies, reductions and investments that those companies have gotten from Liberals and Conservatives that let them actually go out the door.

I want to talk about a more recent case, and then I want to get to natural resources. The most recent one is Nemak in Windsor, which is the Mexican-based company that got a series of investments. It was bought out, previous to that. It got a series of subsidies from the federal and provincial governments of the day, a federal Liberal government and a provincial Conservative government. There were no conditions on the investment of those subsidies. They went towards a new transmission update, a new motor update and other types of innovation. They then took that and put it in Mexico, and closed the Windsor plant down. We had to fight to get the workers' wages back. Our bankruptcy and solvency laws are actually very much against workers right now. We lost this opportunity, but we funded the loss of our opportunity after we let the company be taken over.

The reason I talk a little about the auto sector is that we had to have some foresight. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have never had that. Some Canadians might remember Inco, Alcan, Falconbridge and Stelco. They are all gone. All were Canadian giants in natural resources, and the industry is now owned by Vale, Rio Tinto, Xstrata, and U. S. Steel. Some have even changed since then. All were foreign interventions in the Canadian system of natural resources.

Who owns the natural resources? We do, as Canadians. It is a privilege to be able to mine those resources. We are the ones who actually have the asset. It is no different actually from the spectrum that we have for our telecommunications industry, where successive Conservative and Liberal governments have taken in $21 billion from taxpayers and allowed companies like Shaw, Telus, Bell and others to charge some of the highest rates. From the year 2000 to this past year, we actually took in, under successive Conservative and Liberal government, $21 billion in spectrum auction of the airwaves above us that Canadians own. Then we let them charge us some of the highest prices in the world, with some of the worst practices.

That is important, because natural resources are at a premium now, especially when we are looking at lithium ion and different types of minerals related to the new economy and the emerging auto industry in electrification. It actually goes further than that. There was a big loss with respect to getting the next chips and innovation related to the electronics industry. The shortages were high. The U.S. is spending billions of dollars in investment. In microchips, we were actually a leader at one time, in Mississauga. We let that be bought out, closed down and shipped over to Taiwan. All of it was approved under Liberal and Conservative governments in the past, after policies of reducing corporate taxes and giving subsidies with no conditions and terms. Companies were bought up, closed down and, with less competition, moved out of the country.

Finally, and I have raised this in the past, when China Minmetals was on the lookout to buy Canadian natural resources in the oil patch, what is interesting about that is at that time, back in, I think, 2004, there was no national security review screening, and that was okay, if members can believe it. Paul Martin was the finance minister at the time, and he later became Prime Minister. It was okay with the Conservatives and Liberals for China's national industries to own Canadian natural resources, but it was not okay for Canadians to own Petro-Canada, so we sold off our shares in Petro-Canada. We took a bath on it because six months later, the prices skyrocketed, at a time when it was okay for China to invest. All the records are here. All the documents are here. At the same time, we could not have a national champion like Petro-Canada, heaven forbid, but at the same time we brought in investments from China. Now the Liberals are talking about concerns and reservations, but we do not have those resources under control anymore.

We are looking at the same thing with competition right now. If we look at the frustrations in the grocery industry and all the different consumer industries, they are of concern. There is a pattern here. All these industries I have talked about had to be approved by the minister and cabinet, so I am empathetic to the Conservatives' amendment here for a cabinet review, but when we have a party that is destined ideologically to sell off Canada, it does not matter if it is one person or 12 in the room making the decision to sell off those jobs and those investments. That is the problem.

When we look at some of the most historic ones, such as Lowe's buying Rona, how well did that work out? Now it is going back to the Rona brand, because people trusted it because it was a Canadian company. What did we do? We allowed Lowe's and basically Home Depot to be the competitors, and we eliminated the Canadian competitor by allowing it to be bought up. What Rona got as a condition and term was a supposed corporate office, I cannot remember if it was going to be in Quebec City or Montreal, but in one of those two places. We know that was a facade.

At the same time, we saw it in the retail sector, which is just as important, with electronics. We used to have Future Shop. It is gone. Now we have Best Buy, and that is it. It only had a limited market to begin with, but on top of that, Best Buy said it would sell off the Canadian component as well so that it would have no competition. If we wonder why we have less competition, it is because ministers and multiple cabinets are ideologically driven, not from a business sense, by competition or all the other things that are important to the consumer society. The United States has laws preventing that from happening. What we have are ideologically driven governments that want to sell off Canada and say it is okay because that is the way of doing business. However, it is not the way of doing business anywhere else but Canada. The United States has anti-competitive laws for those things that break up companies like Microsoft and others when they have gone too far. We do not have any of that stuff here.

There are so many cases it is unbelievable, but another one I want to note is Zellers and Target. It is one of the most eye-popping ones. During the retail market struggles when companies were losing money, Zellers was still making a profit, even with a union that provided benefits for its employees. What did we do? We opened the floodgates. We let Target come right in and take over Zellers and close some of them down. A few months after that, Target realized that maybe it was not so hot for the Canadian market, and after about a year it ended up closing those stores. The workers were gone. The pensions were gone. The benefits were gone. The stores were gone. Zellers is trying to make a return now, but what does it matter when we had a minister, cabinet ministers and parties in power who were ideologically driven to basically give Canada and the investments away?

It is not the same free market as in the United States. I live close to the U.S., and I know it has much stronger laws that protect consumers than in Canada. It is about time we got them here.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor West has been a long-time member of the industry committee and has a good knowledge of the various industrial sectors.

I want to ask him about the impact of foreign ownership on certain segments of the industrial sector. For example, almost every company in the steel or aluminum industry is foreign-owned, and none of those steel and aluminum sector companies have had any capacity during the last 20 years. The stagnation we see with this foreign ownership does not impact the economic security of Canada, which can also be related, in one way or another, to the national security of Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been on this committee and others as well. His question is a really good one, and I really appreciate it.

We can look at national security and a number of different things through the lens of Stelco in Hamilton, which was bought up by U.S. Steel. It actually moved some of the operations to Zug Island in Detroit, where its operations caused what was then called the Windsor hum, even though it came from Detroit. The operations there made vibrations and problems.

I will conclude by saying it is a great example, because we gave up the capacity to grow and expand our steel and aluminum industry, and then the company pulled it out because they wanted less competition. The end result was that we had a painful exercise with workers who lost pensions, jobs and so forth.

That is why I appreciate this question, because it is about national security, and it is also about personal security for our workers who are actually in these sectors.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the clause-by-clause study at the industry committee, the government members voted against a Conservative amendment that would subject state-owned enterprises in countries like China to a mandatory national security review.

I would like to know what the member's thoughts are as to why the government would vote against such a common-sense amendment that would protect Canadian assets, especially in minerals and natural resources.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was perplexed by that.

I want to thank the member, who actually came to the committee. The committee is known to try to work together to improve the bill.

There are several amendments in here, and I want to commend the member for working through a process where one of his amendments that was supposed to go through, was sabotaged.

People should know that the member brought forth a compromise, a specific related amendment that really should be in his name. I want to say publicly that I appreciated that approach.

I do not know why they would have these mandatory things not necessarily part of it right now, especially because there has been growing consensus.

I referenced China Minmetals in the past, but now we have come to a point where people understand that the national security clause is a paramount part of what we do.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned speech.

I would like to know whether he would be open to creating another bill or at least finding some way to do more to protect our high-tech sectors as well as the head offices of our small businesses. What I would like to say to my colleague is that the Quebec economy in particular is made up largely of SMEs. The thresholds are not reviewed very often.

Does the member think it is important to try to protect our small businesses?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question as well, and I will tell members why.

The small and medium-sized businesses that the member references often get out of the discussion points, but they are also some of the start-ups, the other ones we are trying to incentivize to get to the next level, from small to medium to growing. Then what happens is they are gobbled up. I would be open to looking at that.

I think the member brings up an excellent point that gets really lost. We are spending a lot of time, money and energy in proponents to help venture capitalism and grow Canadian companies, companies in Quebec as well. The member brings up an excellent point. Sometimes we do those investments, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and then they get gobbled up later and that is at a discount for those foreign nationals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Today the House of Commons will vote unanimously to support this bill's objectives. This bill was studied at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and we encourage those members to send this bill to the Senate for its consideration.

Members all know very well this legislation plays an important role in our economy and that it helps in making Canada a destination of choice for foreign investments. This legislation will ensure there are favourable conditions for a trade based on a stable regime and clear regulation.

This legislation encourages economic growth and employment. The legislation allows for a government intervention only if an investment would harm Canada’s national security. Bill C-34 allows the government to act rapidly if the circumstances require it, and this is exactly what we intend to do with these proposed amendments.

In fact, it is clear the time has come to modernize the ICA and ensure Canada is aligned with the rest of the world. Our industry remains one of the most dynamic in the world, but as members all know, Canada is facing unprecedented geostrategic challenges and national security issues.

Canada’s foreign investment regime must adapt to the speed of innovation. In recent years, intangible assets in the knowledge economy, like intellectual property and data, have grown in importance in defining Canada’s economic strength and at the same time pose new challenges in terms of how these are to be managed to ensure the benefits accrue to Canada and Canadians.

Our government recognizes the value of the intangible economy, its growth and the relevant opportunities for all Canadians. These new innovations are driving new ways of doing business and with huge opportunities for Canadians. Our government will support this growth as it helps drive Canada’s economy and supports highly skilled, well-paying jobs.

To do so, tools such as the ICA must also be modernized to offer additional protections considering changing geopolitical and technological advancements, and to prevent hostile actors from exploiting Canada’s expertise and capacity for innovation.

Geopolitical risks and instability are now fixtures in our operating environment. Hostile state and non-state actors pursue deliberate strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property. They do so in ways that are fundamentally 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 clear and here to stay.

Rapid technological innovation has provided Canada with new opportunities for economic growth, but it has also given rise to new and difficult policy challenges. More and more, Canada is the target of hostile threats. This threatens both our national security and our prosperity simultaneously. That is why our government must adapt our tools to better defend ourselves against current and future threats.

All over the world, foreign investments have been the subject of many investigations, with a specific focus on national security. These investigations focused on several angles, such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the security implications of climate change, disruptions to global supply chains and shifting geopolitical considerations. Hence, by amending this legislation to stop the threats of tomorrow, Canada will remain a destination of choice for foreign investments.

The time is right to pursue modernization of the Investment Canada Act. Now more than ever, we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to foster an innovative, healthy and growing economy. 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.

Allow me to repeat that these types of investments in sectors deemed sensitive currently face enhanced scrutiny under the ICA. Our government believes an effective review regime must be robust, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world and that it is now time to make these changes. That is why we stand today in favour of this bill, which represents the most significant update to the Investment Canada Act since 2009.

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 that our assessment of risk keeps pace with evolving economic and geopolitical considerations.

The ICA already gives us much of the authority we need to intercede and address national security risk that can arise from foreign investment. These amendments build on the solid foundation and will improve the mechanics around the national security review of investments.

Now is the time to act decisively so we can make sure that Canada will continue to gain the economic benefits of investments while strengthening our ability to address threats to our country and ensure its future prosperity. It is clear to everyone that the proposed amendments in Bill C-34 would ensure an important equilibrium. They would protect Canadians and Canadian enterprises while making sure that investors will continue to view Canada as their first destination of choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is happening in Canada is that hundreds of millions of dollars of investment are leaving the country because we do not have a competitive landscape here. We have higher taxes, carbon tax 1.0 and 2.0, long approval processes in our regulatory process and uncertainty. We see that we would have to give away $31 billion to incite people to come to Canada and open up a business. Why was none of that put into the bill?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the act are really designed to ensure national security and that Canadian interests are reflected in the act. When foreign investment is coming into the country, it would be subject to a national security review. We have actually seen quite a significant amount of that coming into Canada in recent years. I think giving the minister the powers and authority to be able to react and trigger those reviews are extremely important to protecting our national interests.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is very simple. We sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs together for several months, and in light of everything we learned about ineffective measures for countering foreign interference, when we talk about industrial looting in this case, we want to ensure the viability of our industry.

Based on the conclusions we have drawn in recent months, can my colleague confirm that this amendment and this bill are valid?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that are being proposed by this side of the House are designed to ensure that the bill is consistent. They are amendments that were actually subamendments in our committee put forth by the Conservative Party and the NDP. In essence, the amendments we are making are to ensure that the bill is consistent. I agree with the hon. member that, for our work on the procedure and House affairs committee on tackling foreign interference in Canada, this bill is certainly a step in the right direction. It would essentially subject a lot of the foreign investment in Canada to a national security review, which we can all agree is a positive step in the right direction.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify two specific amendments that were actually rejected by the government. Regarding subsection 15(a) of the act, we wanted to list specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada's national security rather than the systematic approach that was recommended by the public servants. We wanted to do that specifically in relation to the testimony given by the member for Whitby. We need to be very careful in light of the strategic and geopolitical issues we are facing. The second amendment relates to section 25.4 of the act, and that would have allowed the Government of Canada to maintain ownership of intangible assets that have been developed in whole or in part by taxpayer-funded research.

Why did the government vote against those two common-sense amendments?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what the member is referring to, because the amendments that we have put forward and we are debating are ones that make the bill consistent. There were subamendments put before the committee that were from the Conservative Party and NDP.

I do not know what the member is bringing forward, but my understanding is that the additional amendment that the Conservatives brought forward is designed to gut this bill and take away the minister's power and discretion in order to trigger a national security review. That would greatly reduce the speed at which that can happen, which I think is contrary to the whole intent of this particular piece of legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

We have time for a short 15‑second question.

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you picked the wrong member for a short 15‑second question. You know me. The time is already almost up.

We welcome the progress and the improvements that the bill makes to the current act, but why are the rules still so slack, and why is there so little scrutiny?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will not be surprised, that, unfortunately, I disagree with the hon. member that this is slack. I do not think that is the case. This is a very strong piece of legislation that was agreed to by committee members.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34, otherwise known as the national security review of investments modernization act, seeks to update and strengthen the Investment Canada Act with the aim of protecting Canada's national security when it comes to foreign investments in our country.

As tensions rise around the world, Canadians, our businesses, our intellectual property, our private data and our natural resources must be protected from bad actors who seek to undermine our sovereignty and exert influence on our institutions and way of life in Canada. For eight years, the NDP-Liberal government has not taken sensitive transactions seriously and has failed to conduct full reviews of transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises, which has seriously jeopardized the security of Canadians and our government.

According to Statistics Canada, China's share of Canadian assets under foreign control doubled from 1.9% to 3.8% between 2015 and 2019. Large shares of key industries are also under foreign control, including 40% of all assets in Canada's oil and gas industry, 48% of wholesale trade, 44% of manufacturing, 30% of mining and quarrying and 25% of professional, scientific and technical services. With so much of Canada's economy controlled by foreign companies and governments, it is crucial that we ensure foreign investments do not pose a threat to our national security and prevent bad actors from weaponizing Canada's economy and our own resources against us.

Let us take a look at some recent examples of investments the government missed.

One example is the Neo Lithium Corp. and Zijin Mining. In March 2021, the minister of industry updated and enhanced guidelines for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises. Just 10 months later, the minister ignored those new guidelines, allowing a Canadian mining company, Neo Lithium Corp., to be acquired by Zijin Mining, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, without a security review.

Another example is Sinclair Technologies and Hytera Communications. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract to supply sensitive hardware for its communications systems to Sinclair Technologies, which is directly linked to Hytera Communications, a company partially owned by the Chinese government and a major supplier of China's public security ministry. It was revealed in December 2022 that the CBSA used Hytera's technology and communications equipment in 2017. Hytera has been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the U.S. and banned from doing business in that country. In 2017, when Hytera acquired B.C.-based telecommunications company Norsat International, the parent company of Sinclair Technologies, the minister of industry failed to request a full national security review.

Conservatives have long called on the current government to take swift action to ensure that, any time a foreign state-owned enterprise seeks to invest in a Canadian corporation or asset, the government conducts a thorough review. At second reading of this bill, Conservatives voted to advance the proposed legislation to the industry committee, upon which I sit, with the clear expectation that significant amendments would be made. At industry committee, Conservatives tabled a number of amendments to ensure these reviews would take place and to strengthen this legislation as a whole.

Some of the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me at industry were adopted. However, many more were voted down by the government.

We wanted to modify the definition of “state-owned enterprises” to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state. We wanted to list specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada's national security rather than the systematic approach applied or recommended by public servants. We wanted to exempt non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the national security review process, to prevent an overly broad review process for an ally such as the United States or Australia. We wanted to allow the Government of Canada to maintain ownership of intangible assets that have been developed, in whole or in part, by taxpayer-funded dollars. The committee members rejected those things.

We wanted to allow the minister to go back and review past state-owned acquisitions through the national security review process, allowing for a flexible review process. They rejected that ministerial power.

We know that public servants do take a risk-adverse approach in crafting regulations and providing advice during the legislative process. That is not necessarily a bad thing. That is a good thing. However, politicians must be willing to make the tough decisions, weighing the potential benefits against the repercussions of any decision.

Going back to that first rejected amendment, Conservatives moved to include companies headquartered in an authoritarian state in the definition of state-owned enterprises to ensure that they are automatically subject to security reviews. We just want to protect our sovereignty.

Public servants warned against calling out certain nations like this, as it could conflict with WTO obligations. However, when we look at the 2019 annual report from the national security committee of Parliament, NSICOP, it highlighted activities carried out by the People's Republic of China in Canada, stating, “they are a clear threat to the security of Canada.” The report also stated that “foreign interference represents a significant threat to Canada's society and fundamental institutions.”

The government's own Indo-Pacific strategy reads:

China has benefitted from the rules-based international order to grow and prosper, but it is now actively seeking to reinterpret these rules to gain greater advantage. China’s assertive pursuit of its economic and security interests, advancement of unilateral claims, foreign interference and increasingly coercive treatment of other countries and economies have significant implications in the region, in Canada and around the world.

Despite all that, the Liberals and the Bloc members voted down our amendment. Frankly, it is not surprising, given how long this government has ignored the 2019 NSICOP report, which called for a foreign agent registry, and given the fact that our Prime Minister has said that he admires the basic dictatorship of China.

The question I want the government members to answer is this: Do they really believe that, without the amendments we put forward in good faith, which they rejected, this bill is as strong as it could be to protect Canadian assets, companies and, most importantly, our sovereignty? I do not believe they can answer with a yes.

Thankfully, a few of our common-sense Conservative amendments were passed.

Number one was to reduce the threshold to trigger a national security review from $512 million to zero for any investment by a state-owned enterprise. I think if there is one thing to note from the work the Conservative Party did it would be our standing up for Canadian sovereignty by changing this fundamental aspect of the Investment Canada Act. Moving forward, when this is passed, when China is looking strategically to take an asset in Canada, say mining rights or a small mine that would fall under the threshold, which I believe this year is at $512 million, that strategic move to try to make its way into the Canadian economy would be subject to a security review. That would be thanks to the hard work of the Conservative members.

Number two was to ensure that items reviewable under the national security review process would include acquisitions of any assets by state-owned enterprises. Number three was to work to ensure that an automatic national security review would be conducted whenever a company had previously been convicted of corruption charges. Number four would require the minister to conduct a national security review by changing “may” to “shall” to ensure a review is triggered whenever it is in the review threshold.

That brings us to today. Conservatives have brought forward a common-sense amendment here at report stage that would protect the system of checks and balances in place on the minister's power to undertake, or not undertake, a national security review. Our amendment would remove clause 15 of Bill C-34, which would revert the language back to the existing text in the Investment Canada Act. This would ensure that cabinet continues to play an active role in ensuring regional representation and in making major decisions about foreign investment in our country.

In conclusion, I understand what the Liberals are trying to do here by streamlining decisions through the minister of industry and the minister of public safety, but we must ensure that regional representation plays a role in national security reviews moving forward.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the amendment to bring the threshold to zero dollars with respect to state-owned enterprises.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague's opinion about the investments done by multinational companies where they come and capture an entire sector, as it is today with the steel and aluminum sector being entirely foreign owned. They just become the branch office of the foreign multinationals, focusing only on the North American markets, and never attempting to export the talent, resources and expertise that is available in Canada to the countries with which we have free trade agreements across the world.

Does that not also fit into the definition of economic security which, in my view, is the same as national security?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of that question, but I will note that the member for Nepean actually stood alongside Conservative members in the House during second reading when he called for some of the changes to the national security review.

More broadly to his point, I think when we look at the Investment Canada Act, the Government of Canada needs to be looking very closely at protecting strategic interests, and that is what we were trying to do. That is not just from foreign state-owned actors, but that does include multinational companies as well.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was criticizing the Bloc Québécois for voting against the Conservative amendments. I just want to make it clear that the Conservative amendments were intended to label just about every state-owned enterprise not run by our Five Eyes partners as hostile.

I do not know if he is aware that 40% of European investments made in Canada are made in Quebec. One example is Airbus, which builds Airbus A220s in Mirabel in partnership with the Quebec government. We would have looked pretty silly if the Conservative amendments had been adopted.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question in the House today is whether the Bloc Québécois will protect Quebec sovereignty and support the Conservative amendment, which will keep regional representation in cabinet rather than leaving it all in the hands of a single minister. Imagine if a minister from British Columbia could make a decision for the Quebec nation without cabinet members from Quebec having any say in it.

The Bloc Québécois should vote with the Conservatives in favour of this amendment to protect sovereignty, not just for Quebeckers, but for all of Canada.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, NDP members were talking about the fact that we have no protections in Canada from extra-large corporations that are making billion of dollars in profits and are basically sucking up all the little guys in this country.

Can the member speak to whether they agree that we should have rules, like the United States does, that would allow us to break up these extra-large oligarchies, which are taking over competition in Canada?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question regarding the Competition Act, which has been debated very recently in the House of Commons. However, the Investment Canada Act is a bit different than the Competition Act.

What we are focused on here today is ensuring, irrespective of political party, that the Government of Canada has the necessary tools and framework to protect Canadian sovereignty to ensure that our elected officials can make appropriate decisions when foreign investment wants to come into this country and make a decision to ensure that it would be a net benefit gain for Canada when foreign investment dollars come to our wonderful country.

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

Mr. Speaker, why is it so important that we brought down the threshold from $512 million to zero?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was so important to reduce the threshold to zero to account for intangible assets, for small mines in the natural resource sector and for businesses that could fall below the threshold, but would ensure a strategic asset for a state-owned enterprise or a foreign government that does not necessarily have the best interests of Canada at heart. What we are doing with this amendment is following along the lines of our other like-minded nations to protect strategic assets in Canada or corporations.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-34, an act to modernize the national security provisions of the Investment Canada Act. We have been clear that we will always welcome foreign investments and trade that encourages economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada.

At the same time, we know that economic security is national security. That is why this bill, which will amend the Investment Canada Act, would bring forward improvements so our government can act more quickly when required. This legislation would represent the most significant update of the ICA since 2009 and would ensure that we could address changing threats that can arise from foreign investment. While our government continues to welcome foreign direct investment, we are modernizing the ICA framework to ensure Canada’s continued prosperity while acting decisively when investments threaten our national security.

Let me first appreciate the fundamental importance of foreign investments to our economy. Canada has a long history of welcoming foreign capital, businesses and expertise, and this openness has played a pivotal role in shaping our nation's growth. Foreign investments are a driving force behind economic development in Canada. They fuel innovation, stimulate job creation and enhance our global competitiveness. Foreign direct investment has enabled us to harness the expertise and resources of international partners, thereby propelling our own industries forward.

These investments result in the creation of well-paying jobs for Canadians and help diversify our economic landscape. Moreover, they facilitate the transfer of knowledge and best practices, fostering innovation and productivity enhancements. While the economic benefits of foreign investment are undeniable, we must not overlook the critical dimensions of national security. Protecting our sovereignty, infrastructure and sensitive data is paramount. National security is not a matter of choice. It is an unwavering obligation of the government to safeguard the interests and well-being of its citizens.

Over the years, the interconnectedness of our world has increased exponentially. Technology and the flow of capital have become global, creating unprecedented opportunities but also potential vulnerabilities. We cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to the protection of our national interests. While our commitment to an open and welcoming environment for foreign investors remains steadfast, it must coexist with a thorough evaluation of the national security implications that each investment brings with it.

As I said earlier, we welcome foreign investments and trade that encourages economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada. At the same time, we know that economic security is national security.

In my speech during second reading, I had mentioned the importance of economic security. I would like to touch on that again. The importance of economic security in the context of foreign direct investments cannot be overstated. In the pursuit of economic growth, it is essential that we safeguard against any potential threats to our long-term economic security.

The economic security part primarily concerns the stability and growth of our economy, while the national security part pertains to safeguarding our sovereignty and protection from external threats. Foreign direct investment is a powerful tool for economic growth, but it must be leveraged in a way that ensures that all sectors of our economy continue to thrive.

The steel and aluminum industries in Canada, which are 100% foreign-owned, serve as a compelling example of how a failure to address economic security can potentially result in stagnation and even decline. These industries, dominated by foreign ownership, have seen little to no growth in production capacity over the past two decades.

While the rest of the world is expanding its aluminum and steel sectors, Canada's lack of growth and diversification in these areas has hindered our ability to tap into new markets and fully leverage our numerous free trade agreements. In fact, there are hardly any exports from the Canadian steel and aluminum industries outside of North America, even though we have signed 15 free trade agreements with 51 different countries that cover 61% of global GDP.

There is a need for a comprehensive approach to foreign investment that addresses not only national security but also the economic well-being of our nation. We must find a balance that encourages investment while ensuring that the growth and diversification of our economic sectors continue to contribute to our long-term economic security.

To strike a balance between these economic requirements and national security requirements, we have adopted a comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to foreign investments. The approach is rooted in a principled and fact-based assessment of each investment proposal. The key elements of our approach include legislation and regulations, a national security review process, risk assessment, proportionate responses, consultation and transparency.

There are certain principles that guide our approach to foreign investments and national security. The first is sovereignty and security. Canada's sovereignty and national security are not negotiable. The government is committed to safeguarding the country's interests and ensuring that foreign investments do not compromise its security.

The second is openness and partnership. Canada remains open to foreign investments that enhance economic growth and job opportunities. We value international partnerships and the mutual benefits they bring.

The third is transparency and accountability. Our approach is characterized by transparency, accountability and due process. Decisions are made based on facts, expert advice and consultation with relevant parties.

The fourth is proportional response. The response to national security risks is proportionate to the level of risk identified. This ensures that legitimate and beneficial investments are not unfairly restricted.

The fifth is continual adaptation. Our approach is not static. It evolves to address new and emerging challenges. The government remains committed to staying ahead of evolving threats and opportunities.

With this act, we are highlighting that Canada's approach to foreign investments strikes a delicate balance between economic growth and national security. We remain committed to welcoming foreign capital and expertise that contribute to our prosperity, innovation and employment opportunities. However, this commitment is tempered by an unwavering dedication to safeguarding our sovereignty and national security.

The Investment Canada Act, the national security review process and the guiding principles that underlie our approach provide a robust framework to evaluate foreign investments. Through consultation, transparency and a proportional response to identified risks, we ensure that legitimate investments are not discouraged and national security is upheld.

In this era of interconnectedness, Canada's approach is not a mere policy. It is a reflection of our values, our commitment to our citizens and our vision for a prosperous and secure future. We embrace the world while safeguarding our national interests, and in doing so, we strengthen the very foundations of our great nation.

The ICA provides for both the net benefit and national security reviews of foreign investments into Canada. It was established to provide investor certainty while reserving Canada's ability to block individual investments under specific circumstances. The act is designed to encourage investment, economic growth and employment, only interceding when an investment is not of net benefit to Canada or would harm national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a long history of the Liberal government making poor decisions by allowing Chinese Communist state-owned operations to take over operations. I will start with one, Anbang. Members will remember that then minister Navdeep Bains bought health care for seniors in B.C. It was a total disaster thereafter, and during the pandemic, the B.C. government had to step in and take over. For that reason, we do not need one individual making a decision on whether there should be a security review.

Does the member agree with the Conservative amendment that it would be better to have the Governor in Council or all cabinet members weigh in on those kinds of decisions?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, national security issues due to investments made by certain state-owned enterprises were always a concern. In fact, I think we have gone back and re-reviewed some of the decisions made to allow foreign investments by state-owned enterprises.

My view is that this bill is comprehensive enough to take care of the national security review of any investment made by any foreign entity.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the parts of my colleague's speech where he says that sovereignty is not for sale and other such things, but that we must not block appropriate investments. I understand the argument.

I would like to know what he thinks about the importance of protecting strategic investments in small business innovation or land ownership, for example. This issue has not been discussed in much detail yet. Some foreign countries are buying land. Farmland comes to mind, but it is not only farmland. There is a speculation problem in this regard.

Does my colleague agree that we should study the issue and try to limit foreign access to our land?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that any investment that promotes innovation in Canada is always welcome. A question will only come up if that innovation affects national security. If there are any speculative investments, like the purchase of agricultural land just for the sake of holding it, they too should be looked into. At the end of the day, the ownership of limited and productive resources does constitute a national security threat.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about breaking up large corporations that have limited the competition happening in Canada. My partner from the NDP was speaking about many of them recently, whether it was Target taking over Zellers or Lowe's taking over Rona. Does the member believe that this is a good idea for Canadian consumers?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, the idea of breaking up private sector companies just because they have gotten large may not be great for the limited market that Canada enjoys. However, more competition in every sector is required and should be encouraged. That is my position.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the importance of trade agreements and foreign investments. When we look at Canada and the number of trade agreements it has achieved over the last number of years, I like to think that has made Canada open to foreign investment. That is one of the reason we need the modernization of legislation. What are his comments on that?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exactly right. The 15 trade agreements we have signed with 51 countries, covering 61% of the world's GDP, show the world that Canada is an attractive place for foreign investment.

We want to attract foreign investments that are strategic, that promote innovation and that provide high-quality jobs in Canada. We are always open to that. However, this particular bill focuses on investments that affect national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-34 and the final amendments to it. I want to outline briefly, as many others have done, but with my own spin, details on the context of Bill C-34.

We have to look at the economy as it is today, both in Canada and around the world. Twenty or 30 years ago, or even a decade ago, the economy was much different than it is today, both in Canada and around the world. Economies were winning in the 1950s and 1960s if they had a manufacturing base. That was the primary driver of the economy. It was the new economy of the day, as we moved from an agriculture economy to a manufacturing economy.

This has radically changed in the last decade. We have moved to an economy that is largely based on intellectual property. Knowledge is truly power in today's economy. It will determine who are the winners and the losers in the future economic growth of the world.

The 1950s, the 1960s and even the 1970s were characterized by a Cold War, both economically and geopolitically. On the one hand, the Soviet Union was advocating for a centrally planned economy ruled by an authoritarian regime, and on the other hand, the other power, the United States of America, called for a free market system, a system that empowered people around the world to hit their maximum. Our economies and frameworks were built around that.

The challenge today for Canada is that too often our legislation, our frameworks and even our mindsets in certain instances are still back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. We need to adopt a framework. I am pleased the government put Bill C-34 forward, but in some ways it is the exception that proves the rule. When we look at major pieces of legislation, the major frameworks required, unfortunately Canada is falling further and further behind.

If we look at the Income Tax Act, nearly every other OECD country has had a major reform to its taxation regime in the last 40 years. Canada has not. The last time Canada had a major income tax reform was back in the 1970s when the capital gains tax was brought forward. We are not modernizing. We are not keeping up with the rest of the world.

Even Bill C-34 is a dollar short and a day late in many instances, because in some cases the horses are already out of the barn. We have talked about a number of examples, including the lithium mine, which was just rubber-stamped by the government. We have had examples of predatory state-run companies that have walked into our market, purchased our goods and left, with us smiling all along the way. As Canadians, we have to not be afraid to stand up for the Canadian economy and for our fellow Canadians.

We have precious resources, and when I say “resources”, I am sure many members' minds go to our natural resources, which are critical. However, we have a resource that is far more valuable than lithium, gold, platinum or other natural resources we might have. We have the intelligence and ideas of our young and our workers across this country from coast to coast. Right now, we do not have an effective regime to allow those people to be successful here in Canada. We see far too often that our best and brightest, instead of growing great Canadian companies, are taking their ideas abroad, often to the United States of America but also to Europe and other countries, where they are given the opportunity to fully promote and exploit their ideas. We are lacking the intellectual property framework that allows Canadians to be successful.

In Canada, from coast to coast to coast, including in the great province of Quebec, we have some of the best ideas in the world. The difficulty is the transition of those ideas into a commercially viable product. We have resources, which might be gold, lithium or the ideas generated by the great Canadian workforce, and those ideas and resources are among the best in the world and are incredibly valuable. However, what happens far too often in Canada is that we just let them go away, whether it is a lithium mine being sold to state-owned enterprises or our ideas.

Instead of grounding those works in a framework where those individuals can make the most of them, people feel that they cannot make the most of them in Canada because we do not have intellectual property. There are ideas like patent boxes and other tax reform ideas that could have been implemented yesterday. They are not partisan ideas. They have appeared in both Liberal and Conservative, and maybe even Bloc Québécois, platforms, and they just make sense, but we need to get a move on. We need to modernize, but unfortunately the government is slow to act. Even Bill C-34 is very modest and moderate movement. It was with the pushing of some great Conservative members on the committee that we were able to be a bit more aggressive, such as by reducing the cut-off for a national review from $512 million to zero. We have to look at the world not as it was, but as it is.

Another key element that has changed since the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is that then, we had the Soviet Union. It had state-run enterprises, but for the most part they simply did not engage in trade with the west. The need to protect our local economies and our national economies from the Soviet Union was limited, because it really did not trade with us very often. That is completely different from, diametrically opposed to, what the People's Republic of China, the regime in Beijing, is accomplishing. It is engaged in trade throughout the world and with Canada, and aggressively so. We have to acknowledge that, and the bill starts to do so, which is good. It is very different, when we have a company coming to our shores to invest and do business, if it is a privately owned company really motivated by one thing, as most companies are: profit. That is not a bad thing in my opinion. The NDP might disagree.

There are other companies that are state-owned enterprises. Their goals and targets are often much more obscure and vague. They are sometimes looking to promote an authoritarian regime within our own country, to have power and to take charge within our economy. We have to acknowledge the reality of state-owned enterprises and the differences and challenges they pose for our economy. While Bill C-34 is a step along the way, we still see a number of challenges going forward with respect to protecting our national security.

Canadians cannot be afraid. We are good people. We are nice, polite people, and there is no doubt about that. Even the member for Kingston and the Islands is. I will throw that in there, as a good, polite Canadian. We cannot be afraid to put our elbows up a bit in a respectful way to protect our economy and our national interests. We simply can no longer allow our ideas, which I believe are the most valuable resource we have, or our natural resources to simply flutter away. What happens is that those natural resources and ideas get combined outside our shores into commercially viable products, and we end up paying billions of dollars that could have been Canadian. That is a huge issue for us because we are lacking productivity in our country.

We have the lowest per capita GDP since the 1930s, and productivity is based on a three-legged stool. One leg is technology. We talked about the issues with that. We have to look at ideas such as patent boxes and putting in frameworks to protect our intellectual property. The second leg is capital. We need to be able to attract and invest capital. The third leg is people, and like I said, we need to make sure we keep those great young minds from coast to coast to coast right here in Canada, so they can contribute and build our country into the great country it should be.

With that, I look forward to the members' questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting to listen to the speech by the hon. member. He talked about the movement from an agriculture-dominated economy to a manufacturing-dominated economy and then to the intellectual-property-dominated system that we are in. He also mentioned critical minerals. In fact, The Globe and Mail recently ran a story titled “Canada Wants To Be a Global Leader in Critical Minerals. Why Is Australia Eating Our Lunch?” Most of the companies in the critical mineral sector are now foreign-owned. Maybe soon, 100% of them will be.

I want to ask the honourable member this question: In the changing, multipolar scenarios in the world, and with the need for more self reliance, should we look again at the entire way we promote local industries manufacturing minerals? Is it time to take a new look at these things?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to have a discussion, both on Main Street and on Bay Street, and also here in Ottawa, about the future of the economy, because things are changing rapidly with the rise of artificial intelligence and other technologies. We need to have those discussions, and there is an opportunity for Canada to be ahead because we do have great critical minerals and natural resources, but most importantly, we have great minds and great workers here in Canada who deserve for us to be a leader in the world.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, because he highlighted the positives of Bill C-34. The United States, the Americans, thought of us as a sieve, and they were right. Now, Bill C‑34 fills in the holes, particularly in the review process, which is basically a copy of what is being done in the United States. They are likely to take us more seriously now.

However, we are saying that Bill C‑34 focuses solely on national security. Should we not be focusing on economic security as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is whether we should focus, in general, on economic security. Absolutely we should. I know that no one says the word “COVID” anymore, but I am going to dare, as a politician, to say it. I think COVID really proved to us the challenges that occur, when bad things are happening in the world, if we do not have supply chains that come from our allies, but more importantly from ourselves. Economic and national security are things we should be discussing and looking at to make sure Canada is in the best possible place in the coming years and decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about people wanting to invest in Canada, there are many issues that do come up. One is actually the carbon tax and what it does for competitiveness. A few minutes ago, we heard that the Prime Minister made a big announcement that he is actually going to suspend the carbon tax on home heating oil for three years. What does my colleague think about that?

[An hon. member]

Make that relevant to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will. We are struggling economically. We are struggling productivity-wise. We are facing down the barrel of potential stagnation, and the carbon tax is not helping. It is good that the Prime Minister acknowledged that, but he has got to be desperate now. This is his primary legislation. He is flipping and flopping on the carbon tax. Our leader, the hon. member for Carleton, is holding a huge axe and is ready to cut the carbon tax, and I cannot wait until he does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there is another name in there somewhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for this lack of decorum when it comes to properly naming the riding. If there is one thing I dislike in federal politics, it is that riding names are so long. In provincial politics, it is a maximum of two words, and that suits me just fine.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree. For once, the member for Winnipeg North, from the Liberal Party, supports me. That is great. Finally. It is never too late to be good.

Let us come back to serious things, because this bill is very serious. As I was saying, it seeks to tighten the rules that govern our international trade with countries that are no longer our friends, countries that have a hidden agenda that is covert, hypocritical, cowardly and, most importantly, dangerous for our national security. That is why I must remind the House that, unfortunately, some very serious incidents, in our view, have occurred in relation to international trade.

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 Chinese company Hytera Communications, which is owned in part by the People's Republic of China. A careful review should have been done, but it was not. In 2020, even more insultingly, the Department of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to the Chinese company 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 and consulates.

Foreign Affairs is doing business with a company with a checkered past and close ties to the Chinese government, the communist dictatorship in Beijing, and this equipment is being sent to 170 of our embassies. That makes no sense. How did the government let that happen? Clearly there was a greater need than ever for more rigorous analysis around international transactions.

The other example I am going to share is no better. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract for sensitive communications system equipment to Sinclair Technologies, which used to be a Canadian company but became a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International, which was itself acquired by Hytera Communications. Hytera Communications, which is headquartered in Shenzhen, China, is partly owned by the People's Republic of China, and it is a major supplier to the Chinese ministry of public security.

The RCMP is doing business with that company. Something had to be done right away. That is why we welcome the government's intention to take action on this. We did our job conscientiously during clause-by-clause in committee, where we proposed some 10 amendments. Four were adopted, and I want to talk about them.

The first amendment sought to reduce the threshold for triggering a national security review to zero for all public companies with assets worth $512 million among countries not on the list of trade agreement investors. The goal is to ensure that all investments by public companies can be reviewed. I should add that we can keep doing business with countries we have free trade relationships with.

The purpose of the second Conservative amendment adopted by our colleagues was to ensure that an automatic national security review was performed every time a company had been convicted of corruption in the past. That is a very good thing; I do not think we can ever go overboard on ethics.

The purpose of the third amendment was to ensure that the items examined during the national security review process would include acquisitions of assets by public companies and not only by new commercial establishments, share purchases and acquisitions. If by chance a foreign company wants to buy part of one of our domestic companies, that is precisely the kind of case that is reviewable, which is why we allow it. We need to pay very close attention to that.

The fourth Conservative amendment adopted by our colleagues proposes implementing the requirement for the minister to automatically trigger a national security review every time the investment review threshold is met. This amendment requires the minister to review all investments or acquisitions made in Canada by a company with a value of more than $1.9 billion. The national security review is no longer an option or a choice.

Now more than ever, our country is a free trade country. Now more than ever, terrorism is rampant, and some countries have a bad attitude and act in a heinous way. We are obviously thinking of Putin's Russia and what is happening in Ukraine, among other places. What is certain is that our country must be more vigilant than ever when it comes to international transactions. We have to ensure that we maintain trust with our trading partners with whom we have free trade relations, but we still have to be very careful.

Before I sit down, I feel compelled to comment on the Prime Minister's announcement today that he intends to scrap the carbon tax on home heating. I would like to recall one thing: A year ago almost to the day, on October 22, 2022, the House spent an entire day debating this very proposal, which had been moved by the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition. Who voted against the measure that the government adopted today, a year later, a year too late? It was the Liberal Party, with support from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. Unfortunately, voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly.

Concerning Bill C‑34, we take a positive view and are very pleased that our amendments were adopted.

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

Madam Speaker, periodically, we hear members across the way talk about trade, and they try to glorify the Conservatives. It reminds me of Maurice Richard, the great hockey player, the Rocket. He knew how to get the puck in the net. I would say that the current Deputy Prime Minister is kind of like the Rocket: She gets the puck in the net when it comes to trade agreements. That was a sidetrack as I make reference to trade agreements.

When we talk about international trade and all the agreements that are out there, a message we are sending to the world is that Canada is very much open to the world economy. We want to be engaged in foreign investment.

Today, we are debating an important piece of legislation because it would modernize it, after 14 years of no real changes, and would ensure that Canadian interests are best served from economic and security points of view. Would the member not agree that the principles of that legislation would be good for business?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously we do agree to have more trade agreements with other countries. I am very proud of what we did when we were in office under the strong and proud leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper and the wise actions of the member for Abbotsford, who was the international trade minister. He did a tremendous job signing around 40 deals with 40 different countries. Therefore, yes, we do support that.

The reference to the Rocket with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister reminds me of something. I am sure the member is a hockey fan. Maybe he remembers a series in 1986, I think. Does the member remember the guy from the Oilers who shot and scored on his own net? That is what I think of when I see the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who defended former prime minister Mr. Harper's legacy on foreign investment.

I am proud to say that I come from Thompson and represent this northern Manitoba town. Unfortunately, this is one of the towns that suffered major losses as a result of the deal to sell the Inco mining company to Vale in 2006. This deal, which was supported by Mr. Harper, resulted in the loss of half our jobs. They were good jobs. It forced dozens of families out of my town and caused a rift with workers in Sudbury.

The member was quick to defend Mr. Harper's foreign investment policy, but we know the cost. Does he have any comments on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manitoba for that reminder and her excellent question.

We are aware of the fact that international agreements have consequences. I would like to point out that, sometimes, countries step in directly to protect things. That can result in a degree of nationalization to protect Canada's greater interest. I clearly remember a time when I was active in provincial affairs. I think I was a journalist back then. I was very surprised when the Conservative government bought a Saskatchewan potash company that was in danger of falling into foreign hands, where the risks would have been a lot greater.

Yes, I am very proud of the Harper government's record, especially in the international relations and international trade arena. I have said it before and I will say it again and again: As Canadians, we have tremendous respect for the member for Abbotsford, the foreign affairs minister who signed more agreements than anyone else in the world, and he deserves it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent on his excellent speech. His knowledge of hockey should deter my colleagues across the way from ever taking him on on this particular rink. They would find themselves on thin ice, just like anyone else who would want to challenge him on the subject.

I want to mention something else before I start my speech. We know that several MPs have the joy and good fortune of being able to rely on parliamentary interns who shadow us for two parliamentary periods. I have the honour and pleasure of having Jean-Samuel Houle working by my side as a parliamentary intern. He is the one who helped me research and write this speech that I am delivering today. It is with much gratitude that I thank him for his work and commitment, as well as all parliamentary interns who are working for MPs. Do members know why this is a good program? Interns learn to work with the opposition parties and the government. It is a rather extraordinary school for people who might lead our country one day. I am sure that our future colleagues are among them.

I will now begin the speech prepared for me by Jean-Samuel. For years, the Liberal government has continually failed to address the issue of foreign interference because it does not take it seriously. Our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and other members of Parliament have been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing. Unfortunately, our colleague from Wellington-Halton Hills had to learn about this from The Globe and Mail. That was two years after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service submitted an important management memo to the Department of Public Safety stating that the member was being targeted by a diplomat of the Communist regime, right here in Canada.

The minister responsible for the matter, who was the public safety minister at the time and is now the Minister of National Defence, said in committee that he was never informed in 2021 by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. However, his testimony was contradicted by that of the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, David Vigneault, who said that he forwarded this information to his office, to the department, to the minister, in a very high-priority memo that came with a very clear stipulation to pass on this information to the minister.

Unfortunately, the minister continued to deny any knowledge of the matter when he appeared in committee this week. He made all kinds of excuses. He said that the special, secure encrypted computer to receive the email was somewhere else in the deputy minister's office, not in his office. They are both on the same floor of the same building, by the way. In short, there were all sorts of reasons not to take responsibility for the actions. Everyone recognized that this was a very serious error in the transmission of information. Even the minister himself recognized that. The problem with this government is that there is never anyone to take ultimate responsibility for these actions. Everyone knows how hard that is for the Liberals.

The Prime Minister must be held responsible for this monumental failure that is jeopardizing our democracy. This was confirmed by the testimony of the former member for Durham, who appeared before the committee today and told the government how it is failing to act when it comes to foreign interference. While the government and the Liberals are asleep at the switch, foreign actors are setting up shop and intimidating us more and more.

We know that Beijing has set up police stations in Canada to monitor Chinese Canadians. There are at least five in Ontario, western Canada and Montreal.

This week, members of the House were notified by Global Affairs Canada that a number of Canadian politicians had fallen victim to another interference campaign designed to silence any criticism of the Communist Party. According to Global Affairs Canada, it is a campaign known as “spamouflage”. I had never heard of it before, but I learned that the word actually does exist. It is a combination of the words “spam” and “camouflage”, and it is spam that is camouflaged so no one can tell where it is coming from. The campaign began in August and targeted dozens of MPs of all political stripes, across several geographic regions in Canada. Victims include the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition and several ministers. A number of my colleagues have also been victims of this campaign.

The integrity of our elections and conducting our internal affairs without foreign interference should not be partisan issues. However, it seems that the Liberals have difficulty hearing and acting when our agencies take measures and try to advise them of the importance of what is happening.

It really makes me wonder what the Liberals have been up to. For years, the Conservatives have believed that agents of foreign governments should be registered. On April 13, 2021, Conservative MP Kenny Chiu introduced a bill to create a foreign agent registry. However, an election was called and the registry did not pass.

To make matters worse, it was our colleague Mr. Chiu who was the target of an intense disinformation campaign by the Chinese Communist Party during the election, because he wanted to implement this foreign agent registry. That is totally unacceptable. We need to know who is operating within our borders.

Months ago, the Liberals promised that such a registry was one of their priorities, but they have yet to do anything. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has not even included the issue on the list of the government's fall priorities. When will the Liberals take action? With the Liberals and the Prime Minister asleep at the switch and doing nothing about foreign interference, Beijing's influence is taking hold. That is the consequence. The regime sees Canada's lack of reaction as an invitation to go further and do more. This has to stop.

That brings me to the subject of Bill C‑34, which is before us today. After eight years under this Liberal government, Canadian companies continue to be bought up by actors with malicious intent. More and more state-owned companies that are connected to dictatorships like China have acquired interests in flagships of the Canadian economy. They have bought shares directly or even taken control of certain companies. They are particularly interested in Quebec's and Canada's intellectual property in our high-tech sectors but also in people's private information, which is very worrisome. This is an extremely serious situation.

We must admit it is not a problem in and of itself that foreigners want to invest in Canada. In fact, such investments make a major contribution and help grow our economy. However, an important line must be drawn. Some actors do not come to Canada in good faith. When it comes to money from state-owned companies led by dictatorships, that is a problem. When it comes to money from countries that do not respect Canada or our values, that is a problem. Unfortunately, there are still companies that do not respect us at all and that come and buy our businesses, not to help the economy grow, but to become richer and take possession and control of our resources and intellectual property. For years, we have talked about Canada's findings, research and technology being copied. Who was the expert in that? It was the Communist regime in Beijing. Today, not only are they still imitating products that are made all over without respecting property rights, but they also want to directly purchase the intellectual property that they copied in the past. That cannot continue.

In 2017, the Minister of Industry did not require a full national security review prior to the acquisition of telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by Hytera Communications, a Chinese company. Hytera Communications is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract for sensitive communications equipment to Sinclair Technologies, a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International, which was acquired by Hytera Communications. The headquarters of Hytera Communications is located in Shenzhen, China. I repeat that the company is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. A company that belongs to the People's Republic of China cannot hide any information from the government if they request it. That is why it is so important to take action.

That is why, with the Conservative amendments, we intend to support Bill C‑34. We were able to improve it, but frankly, it was time to take action and do something.

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

Madam Speaker, as in the past, the government has brought forward very positive legislation. It went to committee. Ministers and committee members with very open minds saw a number of amendments passed through the committee. The government was very supportive of some of the amendments that were proposed. Other amendments were questionable, but at the end of the day, with what we have before us today, we will see a better, more modern act. Hopefully, the government amendments will pass.

That would be in the best interests of all Canadians, given the changes in technology, with AI and the amount of interest around the world, in terms of investing in Canada. This bill is in the best interest of Canadians, both economically and security-wise. Would the member not agree that it is sound legislation and even that it would be nice to see the legislation pass before Christmas?

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

Madam Speaker, I am always surprised, astonished, when a government member, an MP, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North, asks me whether or not a bill will be introduced and passed by a given date.

The government House leader is responsible for the government's agenda. It is the House leader who is responsible for ensuring that bills are passed according to the government's agenda. If the government House leader cannot get bills through in a timely fashion, perhaps he should ask his leader, not me.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a Quebec MP. I suspect he is sensitive to the interests of Quebec.

Some of the Conservative amendments proposed during the review of Bill C‑34 may have cast suspicion on certain foreign state-owned companies outside the Five Eyes group.

What impact would that have had on the A220 aircraft currently being assembled in Mirabel in partnership with the government of Quebec? What impact would that have had on the fact that 40% of European investments in Canada take place in Quebec? I think it would have hurt.

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

Madam Speaker, I was not at the committee, but what I do know is that these amendments did not target companies and investors from countries with which Canada has a free trade or trade agreement. Saying things like that today is a little like scaremongering because we all know the Conservative amendments were no threat to those investments.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear the member of the Conservative Party speak about the risks that are present to our economy here in Canada should we entertain the asset purchase of Canadian goods and the production of those goods by bad-faith foreign actors. However, I want to remind the member that, in 2012, the Conservative government of the day sold one of Alberta's greatest assets, which was our oil company.

At that time, the Harper government gave the green light for a $15.1-billion takeover from an Alberta-based company stationed in Calgary, which provided many good jobs for our economy and many well-paying jobs right across Canada. However, Harper sold it off to the Chinese national offshore oil company. How can the member explain what he is saying compared with the truth?

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

Madam Speaker, I love it when a member who was not here at the time of a particular event asks another member who was not here at the time of that particular event to comment on decisions that were made at that time.

The important thing now is to recognize that the Liberal-NDP coalition rejected 10 amendments that would have dramatically improved the bill in committee. However, we did get four of them through, and those amendments will protect Canadians, making this bill more acceptable.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑34 as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade.

This bill seeks to improve the Canada Investment Act to add certain control mechanisms for foreign investments that might undermine national security. Is Canada, a laggard in so many sectors and industries that have an undeniable strategic value, breaking from its idyllic vision of globalization where humankind would unite in joy at the abolition of states and in the feel-good naivety of laissez-faire? Sadly, we are not there yet.

Let us only consider the lack of aerospace policy or how Ottawa shrugs its shoulders to the softwood lumber crises and the forestry issues. Let us be clear, globalization has not abolished state strategies, powers, empires, nor hegemonies. To believe the contrary is to be vulnerable to those who have completely grasped the reality. That reality is one of conflict and a lasting economic war, corollary of a geopolitical confrontation between major world powers.

The main weapon of this economic war is intelligence, economic espionage and obtaining information through aggressive trade. When we lose a headquarters, it is not just the pride of seeing a leading player leave that is at stake; it is effectively a loss of power.

Although Bill C‑34 does not go far enough, it does make seven worthwhile changes including 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; a ministerial power to accept undertakings to mitigate the risk of national security breaches; improved information sharing with international counterparts; and new rules to protect information during a judicial review.

We support the committee's efforts to broaden the notion of sensitive sectors to include intellectual property and databases containing personal information, and to improve Bill C‑34. We are also pleased that the committee rejected the proposed Conservative amendments, which sought to have all foreign Crown corporations considered hostile unless they belong to the Five Eyes. This threatened the interests of Quebec, which accounts for 40% of Canada's European investments. Let us consider, for example, Airbus, a French-German state-owned corporation that manufactures its A220 aircraft in Mirabel, in partnership with the Quebec government. This kind of progress should be commended.

These measures are inspired by the American model—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I apologize. The hon. member will have seven minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, a government that is incapable of destroying non-state coercive actors is as harmful to the cause of freedom as is a coercive state. We live in a time when our friends and our enemies are becoming more clear, our strategic resources and assets are under more threat to be taken over by foreign entities, and at a time when refining our future, growth, potential and lack of industrial policy will threaten Canada's economic future. Safeguarding the resources we have that will also attract good investments has become paramount not only to the success of our country but also to the success of our children.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, our IP, intangible assets and data. Billions of dollars of Canadian natural resources, ideas, IP, land and farms have left Canada and are being controlled by foreign entities. It reminds me of the story of the The Giving Tree, which I sometimes read to my children. After eight years, the Prime Minister and the industry minister have been like the giving tree, giving of Canada's industry, IP and land. In the story, there is a little boy who comes to a tree and asks for its leaves, and the tree gives him its leaves. Of course, in January 2022, the industry minister failed to follow his own guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of a Canadian lithium company, Neo Lithium Corp., by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining Group without a national security review. Of course, we lost those leaves. It was one of the only companies in Canada that produced lithium, which is critical for producing batteries.

Huawei, a state-owned enterprise that feeds intelligence directly to China, was still working with many Canadian universities as of the summer. This is just like the boy who asked for the trunk of the tree and was given it. The government has also made commitments of billions of dollars to Volkswagen, Stellantis and other battery plants with literally all of the mined material composing the batteries coming from state-owned Chinese companies and not Canadian-owned critical minerals or mines. As we see, these are the branches of the tree, and the industry minister came to Canada with these branch plants. Taxpayer-funded dollars at Dalhousie University are funding Tesla IP and research, and the IP is all going back to California. As members can see, this is the stump of the tree.

As at the end of The Giving Tree story, when the little boy had asked for all of these items: the branches, leaves, trunk and stump, Canadians are left with nothing as all of these companies, foreign-owned and foreign-controlled, have left Canada, and we are left with only the roots. As Canada loses literally billions of dollars, IP and resources, the government and the giving tree of a Prime Minister are literally not worth the cost; these investments go elsewhere, and Canadians do not benefit from the outcomes. The future of our country, Canada, is in protecting our sovereignty, land, farms, natural resources, technological assets in IP while simultaneously attracting foreign investment that benefits Canadians and this country. It is imperative that we demand transparency and accountability from our government regarding foreign ownership and its consequences.

We must advocate policies that strike a balance between attracting international investment and safeguarding our national interests. We need regulations that prevent the unchecked outflow of intellectual property and ensure that our economic landscapes remain robust and sustainable for generations to come. We must be able to produce the stuff in Canada, getting international investment benefiting Canada and Canadians, creating powerful paycheques and GDP right here in this nation. With a new Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at countering a disruptive China, which includes military, domestic security and cybersecurity enhancements, we must ensure that we restrict the involvement of foreign-state-owned firms in some of our most critical sectors, including Canada's critical mineral sectors.

Conservatives looked at Bill C-34 and submitted amendments, including an amendment to reduce the threshold that would trigger a national security review from $512 million to zero dollars for all state-owned enterprises, and I am glad the amendment went through. We ensured that the items reviewable under the national security review process would include acquisitions of any assets by a state-owned enterprise. Finally, we believe that decisions need to be made that would allow cabinet, not one minister alone, to make those important decisions as to what should be reviewed and what should not. No power should reside in one just minister. As famously said by Kanye West:

No one man should have all that power
The clock's ticking, I just count the hours.

The one thing that the Americans and the U.K. do differently with national security reviews is utilize all of their federal departments in the process. The U.S.A. uses CFIUS, an international committee authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment. The U.S.A. gives the criteria that CFIUS considers, oftentimes directed by the President of the United States. In Canada, under the current bill, that power would be delineated to the INDU committee and the public safety ministers instead of making sure, at the very least, it is a cabinet decision.

That would severely hamper our national security. Why? In 2017, the Liberal government allowed a telecom company from B.C. called Norsat to be acquired by a company called Hytera, which is a Chinese-based, state-owned company. Hytera does not make any money. The Conservatives demanded, at the time, a full national security review. The Liberal minister of the day refused to do one and approved the acquisition.

Lo and behold, in 2022, Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States and was banned from doing business there. Only eight months later, the RCMP in Canada, shockingly, bought telecommunications equipment from Hytera to put in its communications system. The government says the change would streamline the process and give security and intelligence agencies more time to complete their reviews, but, as it currently stands, if the public safety minister only is responsible for those reviews, they would miss the mark, as they did with Hytera.

I have another example, more hypothetically. What if the industry minister was from Ontario and the public safety minister was from Manitoba and they were about to make a decision about a security review in Quebec? Would Quebec cabinet ministers not want to be guaranteed feedback and a say in cabinet? If we give that power to just one minister and take away the power of cabinet, ministers across the whole country would potentially lose providing their input into something as important as national security.

I have shared with my colleagues the satisfaction of seeing intangible assets included under this review. I wanted to mention this today because it is very important. There are alarming statistics about how much of our intellectual property leaves this country. The University of Waterloo said that 75% of its software engineering grads are being pilfered and leave Canada to go elsewhere. The U.S. has 169 times the IP production of Canada. Canada produces $39 billion worth of IP a year, but the U.S. produces $6.6 trillion. Not only do we need to develop and commercialize the IP, but through this legislation we also need to protect it. It is very important, as the economy of tomorrow is intangible and full of ideas, that we do all we can to ensure we protect the ideas that come out of Canada, and not lose them.

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 25 years. 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 is failing to develop national strategies for IP and data.

China developed 30,000 patents just last year in Al. Canada has developed fewer than 30,000 patents in all of our industries across all sectors.

The future of Canada needs to be protected in the airwaves, blockchain, Al, 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 is desperately screaming for.

Going back to The Giving Tree story, unlike the government, figuratively and literally, the Conservatives would just plant more trees and protect those trees. When we give the world what Canada makes, Canadians make paycheques and Canadians benefit.

Let us agree to support this bill with the Conservative amendment to remove the power from one minister and make sure it stays in cabinet. Of course, in the future, a Conservative government will not only protect Canadian investment but build Canadian companies and attract investment to grow them.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislation would modernize the act. There has been so much change over the last 12 to 14 years that it dictates the government needs to do something, recognizing technological advances to AI and the importance of international interference.

What surprises me is that the Conservatives seem to be buckling down on the whole idea of not allowing the minister to have the authority. I am wondering if they would apply that principle to other areas of responsibility. What specifically is it? A consultation does take place with what I believe are other public safety ministers, though I am not 100% sure of that, but why is it the Conservatives do not want to see robust legislation that would enable a minister to take the action necessary in order to protect Canadian interests?

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

Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious: the minister has failed in the past and the minister is going to fail again. When it comes to national security reviews, we need to ensure we have all actors or all members who can participate in that review process be part of that process. I imagine the example of having a minister from Ontario, a safety minister from Manitoba and an industry in Quebec being looked at. I am not sure why the member would not want a Quebec minister or member of cabinet also being part of that conversation.

More importantly, in the past the minister has given away these resources. Neo Lithium is one example of when we gave away resources to make batteries. That was one minister's decision. We need to make sure it is the cabinet because we can have bad ministers.

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

Madam Speaker, one of our amendments that Conservatives put forward at committee was voted down at committee. I wanted to ask my colleague about it. It was the amendment that called for the modification of the definition of state-owned enterprise to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state like China, for instance. It was voted down.

I wonder if he could comment on the importance of that amendment and why it should have passed.

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

Madam Speaker, not only at the industry committee, but also at the ethics committee, we have had CSIS and other organizations talk about just what state-owned companies do in Canada. One of the witnesses said:

Chinese law requires that all companies and individuals co-operate with their intelligence establishment and hide that co-operation [under state-owned law in China]. That, combined with the Chinese regime's unrelenting cyber and human-source spying on our Parliament, political parties, government departments, universities and businesses, is reason enough to conclude that foreign investment from China must be subject to the most stringent national security test, regardless of what sector or industry the proposed investment may target.

We are in a new world now. We talked about the importance of identifying and ensuring a review of all state-owned Chinese corporations' involvement in Canadian companies. It is of utmost importance. I wish the other parties would take that matter as seriously as we do.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to address something in the Canada Investment Act that he left out in his speech.

It is true that the Canada Investment Act includes a section on national security, but this legislation also includes a section that affects nearly every transaction for which the minister must assess whether it provides a net benefit to Canada.

First, I would like to know if my colleague is satisfied with the way this analysis is done on a regular basis. Second, does he not think that this section of the act could also use some modifications and adjustments to ensure that the transactions are carried out in the best interest of Quebeckers, in my case, and Canadians, in his case?

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

Madam Speaker, net benefit review is extremely important. When we look at any kind of investment, state-owned or otherwise, we want to ensure that Canadians and Quebeckers are getting the best part of that deal for that.

When we look at one aspect, being the Volkswagen and Stellantis deals that have come into Canada, certainly we are evaluating that now. As parliamentarians we look at the net benefit to Canada. It seems that they are investments that, as I mentioned, are more branch-plant investments that did not look at the benefits to our Quebec mining sector. That should have been included to ensure that, any time there was an investment into batteries, we had investments in those mines as well, so that would create more Quebec jobs.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-34 today. It has been said before that weak leaders create hard times. The bill is meant to deal with foreign interference and the lack of infrastructure. I am going to speak specifically about that lack of infrastructure in the north.

Point (b) in the summary says that the bill is meant to “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...”

Again, I think it is pretty easy to make the case that this weak NDP-Liberal government, after eight years, and I would also include the members of Parliament from those territories, has put Canadians at risk in the north. It does not take too long to find articles that are really concerned about this. I will even quote from leaders who are actually in the north.

This is an article from just a week ago: “CSIS warning Inuit leaders about covert foreign investment in Arctic, documents show... The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has warned Inuit leaders that foreign adversaries could gain a foothold in Canada by offering to fill infrastructure gaps in the north.”

This is what this legislation says it is supposed to prevent from happening, and that is good, I guess, but, again, this NDP-Liberal government has been in power for eight years.

“We are making decisions every day that are currently not as informed as they could be about threats and considerations,” said Inuit leader Natan Obed.

I will read on.

“...CSIS documents obtained by CBC News show that the agency is trying to grow its presence in the North and deepen its relationship with Inuit communities in response to 'economic, strategic and military interests of foreign states in the North.'”

I go up to the territories quite often. It is quite a different perspective when one gets to the north, because when one talks to somebody in the southern parts of Canada, the north, the territories, is a faraway place. They do not really get how seriously the territories take this because, really, it is their front yard. They are seeing foreign activity increase right in their own front yards.

The article went on.

“'Foreign interference is a significant threat, primarily from China and then Russia. Both desire access to natural resources in the Arctic, like minerals,' said one of the CSIS documents, released through an access to information request. 'To date, however, [CSIS's] presence in Canada's north and Arctic has been limited.'”

I will go on.

“...CSIS Director David Vigneault visited the region in 2022 and has had meetings with [local leadership]...His talking points for those meetings, released to CBC News, included questions for the leaders about partnering with foreign telecommunication providers. 'CSIS's interests in Canada's north and the Arctic stem from our mandated responsibilities to address security threats, including foreign interference and espionage,' the talking points say.”

On espionage in our Canadian north he said, “'These take the form of activities such as covert foreign investments or partnership arrangements, efforts to interfere in decision-making at all levels of government, theft of research or data and interference in research agendas or funding.'”

Lastly, Natan Obed said, “'There's still incredible infrastructure deficits in the Canadian Arctic, whether it be for airports, for marine facilities, or for just a network for shipping.'”

I started off by saying that weak leaders create hard times. Indeed, this government has had eight years to really strengthen what I would say was a pretty strong approach. The former Stephen Harper government, in 2015, spent a lot of time and made a lot of investments in the Arctic and we just have not seen that continue.

This goes beyond what people think of security, as in the military, investments. Arctic sovereignty really refers to supporting northerners in the north, to make sure that they have good jobs, that they can have healthy families and healthy lifestyles, so they can reside in the north and do so in a strong position.

A way to erode that is to erode the economy. When we erode the economy, we erode those investments that are often made as a side benefit of infrastructure or of industrial development, such as roads, fibre optic networks and other really important infrastructure, which we all use.

This is about a previous action by the Liberal government when there was a moratorium placed on offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic. Bob McLeod, the then premier, who is the brother of the current NWT MP in the House, was not very happy about the decision the Prime Minister made to shut down all development in the north. The premier said there was billions of dollars of investment that simply got pushed off the table. Those investments would have also impacted, in large part, indigenous communities.

The premier said, “we made the decision to unconditionally share 25 percent of resource revenues with NWT Indigenous governments. We are proud to be on the forefront of preserving Indigenous languages”.

However, he also states, and this is a quote specifically about the moratorium:

Restrictions imposed on our vital energy and resource sector—40 percent of our economy and source of middle class jobs and incomes for many of our people—are driving companies away, and with that go the jobs that sustain healthy families and community life. Staying in or trying to join the middle class will become a distant dream for many.

That was then premier McLeod speaking to Bill C-34. When we have weak economies in our territories because of Ottawa-knows-best policies, this is what happens. Infrastructure does not get built and that is what puts us in this precarious position. That was from the Northwest, Territories.

I am going to go over to Nunavut. A recent article is entitled “Arviat South MLA blasts proposed amendments to federal mining law”. This is an MLA in Nunavut criticizing the current member of Parliament for Nunavut. The article states:

During three separate question periods in the legislative assembly on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, Arviat South MLA Joe Savikataaq asked Premier Akeeagok and multiple ministers for their positions on [the MP for Nunavut's] proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act.

The article continues:

He said if adopted [the NDP MP's] plan would impede the growth of mining in the territory and make it harder to increase Inuit employment in the mines.

“Not everybody wants to be a Government of Nunavut worker,” Savikataaq said. “Her position is completely wrong for Nunavut.”

I say that in relation to what we are talking about today. If economies are not developing and they are retracting, this is what happens. Investments are not made. We are put into a position where foreign governments can have undue influence because the territories are so desperate to get this infrastructure that it puts our security and sovereignty at risk.

As it relates to the security aspect of it in the military, we have seen recent quotes from former Liberal MP and general, Mr. Leslie. The article is entitled “Canadian Forces in desperate need of new spending, procurement follow-through”. The follow-through is what needs to be done here. The government makes a lot of promises. I have said in the House before that it has promised billions of dollars to modernize NORAD, but only $45 million has been spent. I have the documents from the estimates in front of me.

I will read from the article. It states, “Canada spends $23.3 billion on the Department of National Defence, but Leslie said the department has a chronic problem with actually using the funds.” Leslie stated, “Over the last seven years, the Armed Forces has been allocated roughly that amount but it hasn't been able to spend it all. And the blame for that lies squarely with the prime minister and the minister of finance,” and I would add on the NDP members to my left. The article continues, “Leslie, recruited in 2015 as a star candidate to write the Liberals' defence and foreign policy platform, is now disillusioned with the government procurement abilities.”

I started off by saying weak leaders create hard times. This weak, NDP-Liberal government has created hard times for us in the north, and it needs to change.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his interest in the north and the Arctic. I am not sure how genuine it actually is.

With respect to this act, the Investment Canada Act, when it comes to ensuring we are doing better at protecting individuals and the land, a lot of what we have to do in these pieces of legislation is prevent the acquisition of certain things. For example, in Nunavut there is a mining company that is not owned within Canada, and a lot of damage is being caused by this mining companies to our lands and our territories. What we need to do is make sure that there is free, prior and informed consent so that indigenous peoples can and will have a say in ensuring that legislation, such as the Investment Canada Act, can have a positive impact on them.

Does the member agree that ensuring free, prior and informed consent should also be included in acts such as these?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would go back to what I started off with saying, which is that the NDP is really the no development party.

I will quote an MLA from Nunavut, who said, “if adopted, [the member for Nunavut's] plan would impede the growth of mining in the territory and make it harder to increase Inuit employment in the mines.”

What the member for Nunavut is doing is preventing this infrastructure investment, the very thing the bill is talking about doing. It is encouraging investment so that the infrastructure gets built, especially in places where it is already lacking in the north. All the member is doing is causing less infrastructure development and less infrastructure to get built.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in addition to discussing public safety, my colleague addressed the issue of national security by talking about the armed forces and commenting on that.

I would like to know whether he agrees that beyond the issue of national security, there is a blind spot in this bill, namely the matter of preserving our economic levers. I would like to know what he thinks because we have some head offices to protect.

How does this bill respond, or fail to respond, to my colleague's expectations when it comes to further protecting our economic levers?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, the economic development we hope to see with this bill is through the prevention of foreign interference from really taking hold.

I have a quote with respect to another security issue, which states, “Russia is a persistent proximate threat to North America. And we know that China has growing capabilities and ambitions. I don't think the status quo is going to keep us safe”.

I do not know if the House fully knows this, but Russia has made claims to our sovereignty over the Arctic seabed we claim belongs to Canada. There are many resources attached to that territory as well. Russia reiterated those claims just in March of 2023. It is imperative that we have strong infrastructure and sovereign security in our north.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to build on the security aspect that the Investment Canada Act, as amended, would now provide, the additional security protections against foreign actors, such as China and Russia, that want to capitalize on Canada's technological advancements, our skilled workforce and the economy, which is really coming along compared to other nations and puts us at risk with respect to security.

Could the hon. member comment on how we are building our security through the amendments to the act that have come back to us?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, the answer to the member's question is that I am not sure.

The NDP-Liberal government, after eight years, makes a lot of promises. To use NORAD as an example, we have seen billions of dollars promised, but the last count I have is that about $45 million has been spent. The government is great at photo ops and talking about getting things done, but delivery is a problem. Where has it been for eight years?

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this place and speak to legislation and, in this particular case, it is an honour to speak to the report stage of Bill C-34.

Before I begin, having just spent the weekend back in my riding and arriving this morning back in Ottawa, at different events and in lots of interaction with my constituents, since we are speaking about competition, I cannot say enough about the impact of the Prime Minister's decision last Thursday to limit the carbon tax, or actually take away the carbon tax, on home heating oil within Atlantic Canada and how much of an impact that is having on the residents whom I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, in a negative way. Many are questioning and wondering why the same application of an exemption to the carbon tax was not applied equally across the country.

I know the Prime Minister gave his rationale, but that is literally cold comfort to the people whom I represent, especially the seniors who are struggling to pay for groceries and to pay their natural gas bills. Many of them are sending me their natural gas bill, and the carbon price is oftentimes equal to the distribution charge of natural gas itself. There are families who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, moms who are worried about paying the bills on a daily basis and, of course, single-parent families who are just struggling to make ends meet, buy nutritious food for their families and pay their gas bills, especially with winter coming up. It was quite the topic of conversation this week within my riding.

Quite frankly, I did not have an answer for any of them because the Prime Minister's decision was to exclude solely Atlantic Canada when the rest of us are still paying the carbon tax for home heating in particular, and those prices are going to go up. The cost of distribution is going to go up and the cost of the carbon tax is going to go up. People in the riding I represent are quite concerned about the inequity of not having the same benefit other Canadians have. I wanted to share that message because it is something I heard on the weekend in my many interactions with the people whom I represent in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil.

We are here today to speak to Bill C-34 at report stage with respect to the improvements, and some needed improvements, to the Investment Canada Act. It is important because we just finished, at the ethics committee, a study on foreign interference and the role that nations, particularly China and Russia, are playing as state-owned actors making investments into our economy for the purpose, quite frankly, of control, including controlling Canadian businesses, controlling Canadian minerals, controlling Canadian resources and controlling, in many cases as the hon. member just spoke about, some of our northern and offshore areas as well. Therefore, it becomes critically important for the government to keep a keen eye, and multiple eyes, in fact, on what is happening with foreign investment and the approvals.

Bill C-34 highlights a few simple things. Number one, there are numerous foreign state-owned enterprises who have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, tangible assets and the data of our citizens. We are finding more and more that this access to data and theft of data are not just to use it for nefarious reasons but to propagate disinformation and misinformation to create societal chaos, so we have to be mindful of that. The government, quite frankly, would do very little to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill, despite what we are hearing the Liberals say today and other days during debate, and certainly at committee.

We have to take sensitive transactions seriously, and we have failed to fully review some of the transactions, particularly as they relate to Chinese state-owned enterprises in the past. Later, I am going to be citing some examples of where we have put at risk not just Canadian intellectual property but also Canadians in general.

One can agree with some of the principles of this bill, and we certainly agree with some of the principles, but it does not go far enough to address some of the risks faced by Canadians. That is why we worked to pass significant amendments in committee to better protect Canadian interests and Canadian assets.

When I look through the list of amendments that were proposed for Bill C-34, only four were passed at committee out of the roughly 13 we proposed. One that was accepted was on reducing the threshold to trigger a national security review from $512 million to zero dollars for all state-owned enterprise investment made in Canada. Lowering that threshold was critical so that at least it would trigger and initiate a security review.

The other amendment that was passed would ensure that items renewable under the national security review process include acquisitions of any assets by a state-owned enterprise. Again, this is all about protecting Canadians and protecting our valuable assets, our businesses and certainly our interests.

The other one would ensure that an automatic national security review is conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges. If somebody had not supported that, I would have been surprised, quite frankly. It is one of the proposals at committee that were adopted.

The last would require the minister to conduct a national security review by changing the word “may” to “shall” to ensure a review is triggered whenever it is in the new threshold. This was quite frankly a no-brainer.

However, there were some amendments proposed that were not accepted at committee and rejected. The one that concerns me the most is the one that would require the minister to conduct a national security review by changing “may” to “shall” to ensure the review is triggered whenever in the review threshold.

One of the things we have to be mindful of is that anytime a transaction being proposed impacts the national security interests of our country, we have to make sure there is a review. One of the proposed amendments was to have a Governor in Council review of this so there is not just one eye on it, the minister's eye. It would go to the cabinet table so there are multiple eyes on it and multiple questions being asked, which is critical when we are dealing with sensitive national security interests.

Why is this important? As I said earlier, there have been situations in the past where companies have not had the type of review they should have. That has been widely publicized. A Chinese takeover deal in 2015 had been previously rejected by the Conservative government, but it was approved in 2015. This was based on Hong Kong O-Net Technologies Group as it related to a business here. Having multiple eyes on the review therefore becomes critical.

In fact, three years ago, a Deloitte study suggested to the government that we should not buy sensitive security IT from despotic regimes. That was in relation to a $6.8-million contract to supply security equipment to Canada's embassies. This was Nuctech, which is known as the Huawei of airport security. Some may recall that this involved X-ray machines being supplied for use by the Government of Canada.

While there are some things to support in this bill, the amendments that were proposed by our Conservative colleagues in committee were reasonable and practicable and should have been applied to many aspects of the bill we are debating today.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a question similar to the one I asked the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. When I asked him the question, rather than responding to it, he resorted to mudslinging against me and using my constituents against me.

While indigenous peoples are doing what they can to protect our assets, we are being violated. Indigenous women are being violated for protecting their lands, for protecting their assets. Does the member agree that this act, the ICA, needs to be amended so that there is free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples when it comes to mining activities?

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that all Canadian interests should be protected, including those of indigenous communities.

As I said earlier, the national security interests of this country become paramount as we debate bills like this. As Canadians, as stewards of our land, protecting northern resources and northern offshore resources becomes critical. If we are going to be serious about the protection of our national interests as they relate to foreign investment, there should be a fulsome discussion around the cabinet table to discuss all aspects of that. This would include the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations as well, because there are certain things that this minister could bring to the table. Let us not just leave it with one minister.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thinking of the timing of this study. We have not reviewed this act since 2009. The FDI reports show Canada as a premier destination for foreign direct investment and that our direct investment has really increased in the last few years, mostly as a result of the forward-looking trade deals we have with many countries. In fact, we are now the only G7 country to have agreements with all other G7 countries.

Could the hon. member talk about the strategic importance of looking at this act now, compared to where we were in 2009?

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

Madam Speaker, it is strategically important that we look at this bill, because we have seen strategic investment drop by almost 20% in this country. We have to ask ourselves why. We have also seen, for example, that in the United States, the investment increases have been the reverse of that.

There is no doubt that we have to look at the strategic investments. We have to look at the impact of what is going on as it relates to foreign investment. We have to understand why we have seen a decrease in foreign investment.

There was a reaction on the other side. Foreign investment should not be confused with government investment. We have seen a significant amount of government investment over the last little while, some of which is questionable, but with foreign investment, we need to have a national security review and all eyes need to be on it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I recall very specifically that, during the 2019 election campaign, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, came to Shefford, to Valcourt, to present the Bloc Québécois's proposals regarding economic nationalism to protect our head offices. That is essential in Quebec. We have a completely different SME model, and Bill C-34 really overlooks that fact.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of protecting our economic levers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a Quebecker; I was born in Montreal. It should come as no surprise to the hon. member that my interests lie in the economic levers of the country, and that would include Quebec. It would also include northern areas of our country and offshore resources, those that are critical to the sustainability of our country. I am interested in all of Canada, not just one part of it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and contribute to the debate on Bill C-34 at report stage. It is a bill that has to do with empowering the government to consider foreign investments in Canada and foreign acquisitions and ask whether ultimately those investments or acquisitions are in Canada's best interests. It has been some time since the bill was revised. A lot has happened in the country and the world since 2009, so I think it is a good thing to be looking at these things and asking these questions once again.

There has been some talk and debate already, so I thought I would spend a little time addressing some of what has come before. We are talking about foreign direct investment and trying to figure out why, according to some, there is less foreign direct investment in Canada now than there was before, or why we are not doing as well as certain competitors at attracting foreign direct investment. When we are talking about that, one of the things to note is that over the last 20 or 30 years, if we look at the oil and gas sector as a target for foreign direct investment, we are noticing that a lot of foreign investors are scaling back their investment in Canadian oil and gas at a time when they are trying to scale back their investments in fossil fuels generally as part of a movement by many countries to try to address climate change, diversify energy generation and be less captive geopolitically to countries that are suppliers of natural gas and oil.

As such, Canada has seen a corresponding decrease in foreign direct investment in the oil and gas industry. Despite Conservatives liking to talk about how our allies want Canadian oil and gas, we are seeing a divestment. Also, Canadian banks have filled up that space, so it is not that oil and gas in Canada is not getting private financing to do what it is going to do. What it does mean is that Canada's financial industry is that much more heavily invested in oil and gas, as it picks up the slack that investors from other countries are leaving.

When we look at the global financial picture and where it is going, I think Canada has to watch that we do not end up having a financial sector that is overexposed to fossil fuels. When we look at what Conservative premiers have been doing, like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who is cancelling on a whim tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy in her province, it is to say no to a lot of foreign direct investment, say no to foreign direct investment that would contribute to lowering our emissions and say no to foreign direct investment that would help position Canada in the new energy economy that is emerging, whether Conservatives here would wish it or not. I think that is part of the larger conversation around foreign direct investment.

Let us say that those tens of billions of dollars of investment in Alberta were going ahead and that those foreign investors were interested in investing capital in Alberta to reduce its emissions but nevertheless maintain Alberta as an energy superpower. Let us also say the Conservative premier did not wantonly cancel all of that investment. What would that mean? Well, it would mean there is a role for the Canadian government to evaluate who those investors are and to ask whether they are investing in Alberta in a way that complements the national interests of Canada or are doing it for geopolitical reasons that do not ultimately serve Canada's interests.

If Russian oligarchs and the Chinese state are the ones interested in building up Alberta's solar and wind capacity, I think a lot of Canadians would rightly have questions about the motives of foreign governments that want to be owners of those things or that are closely tied to oligarchs who want to be owners of those things. It is right and good that the Canadian government should evaluate those kinds of investments in advance, make a determination about the Canadian public interest and then either authorize the investments or not.

We know that Canada's laws on foreign investment have been too weak for too long. New Democrats historically have argued for very strong oversight of foreign investment and foreign takeovers for exactly the reason that we are concerned about and very aware of the role that actors outside of Canada can have in coming to own some of our most strategic resources.

Those are all important things to bear in mind. I think this legislation does create more tools. One of the things that I know my colleague for Windsor West, who was quite involved in this file at committee, was very concerned about was that it should create better protection and sculpt the thresholds better to capture intellectual property. I was glad to see that an NDP amendment to that effect was passed.

We know that the economy today is not the economy of 50 years ago, that it is a knowledge-based economy and that it is important to have thresholds that are not just designed for big capital investments, or physical capital investments, but that will also capture and alert government to potential investments or acquisitions by foreign actors of intellectual property. The real value of intellectual property is sometimes not in the right to that particular property itself, but in many of the kinds of spinoffs, licensing and various other things that do not show up on the traditional balance sheet that would be looked at under the current provisions of the act. Therefore, it is important to rejig the threshold so that the potential economic value of intellectual property registers appropriately in the screening mechanism. This can ensure that, where sensitive IP, very valuable IP or strategic IP is being contemplated in a foreign acquisition, merger or investment, the light goes on for folks in government who are supposed to be reviewing these things, and they give it a serious look.

Therefore, I give a shout-out to my friend and colleague from Windsor West for capturing what I think is a very important aspect of foreign investment review going forward and ensuring that it gets appropriate mention in the bill.

I have heard some Conservative colleagues talk a fair bit about China. I think China should be on our radar. We know that China is flexing its muscles on the geopolitical world stage, and it has been for some time. That is why New Democrats were critical of the foreign investment protection agreement that the Harper Conservatives signed with China. I think we should ask the question of how these changes to the Investment Canada Act will interact with that foreign investment protection agreement, particularly given that a lot of the proceedings that happened under the auspices of that FIPA are secretive and hard to access, and they do not permit the level of transparency that I think Canadians would expect to see.

There are other important questions around foreign investment that I think we need to be asking. It is important to have a long memory in this regard. In that way, we can evaluate the claims being made by some in terms of their concerns about how tightly government regulates foreign capital that comes into Canadian markets. We should know the history of those parties and what they have done in government, so we can evaluate their claims to be guardians of the Canadian economy. We know many Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed for the sale of important strategic resources. In a time when we are talking about reshoring and reintroducing industrial planning, changes to this act are an important part of that. However, changing the act itself will not matter if we do not have the political will on the part of whoever is in government to conduct those reviews in an appropriate way, to have a proper definition of Canadian interests and to be willing, where those investments do not make sense for Canada as a whole, to say no.

Of course, the track record of the current government saying no to things on behalf of Canadians and in the interests of everyday Canadians is not that great. I think about the Rogers and Shaw merger and the forthcoming decision about the RBC and HSBC merger. I think these will be important moments. The Liberals have already failed on Rogers and Shaw. An important moment coming up for the government on the RBC and HSBC merger is another proof point for how willing Liberals are to say no to big corporate interests, whether domestic or foreign, in the name of Canadians' own best interests.

I look forward to that decision. I urge the government to make the right one. I think that will tell a fair bit of the story about whether these are just changes on paper or whether the government intends to adopt a culture of protecting Canada's best interest over corporate interests seeking to subvert important pillars of the Canadian economy for corporate gain.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, in 2022, there was $64.6 billion of foreign direct investment in Canada. That was up 13.6% over the 10-year average.

It is interesting to see that manufacturing, which I know is a big deal in Transcona and a big part of the Assistant Deputy Speaker's economy, was actually ahead of energy and mining. There was $15.5 billion of foreign direct investment in manufacturing.

The green energy projects the member mentioned were number two in the world.

In terms of the importance of having security as a main part of what our review is, to attract even more than the 682 companies that have come to Canada to make investments, could the hon. member comment on the importance of us displaying certainty around our security provisions so that we can build even more from where we are now?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing some hard numbers. I think that maybe our Conservative colleagues think that foreign direct investment is down because they only look at the oil and gas industry and mistake it for the entirety of the Canadian economy. Of course, Canadians are hard at work in many sectors, producing value. We want to see an economy where workers get to keep a larger share of that value, but it is certainly the case that Canada is doing well and performing well on many metrics.

I would say that, when we talk about the geopolitical situation and FDI, we should be careful to ensure that those direct investments, those foreign investments, are actually contributing to the Canadian economy in the ways we would like to see. I think that is why changes to this act are important. When we talk about reshoring and other things such as that, we are living in an important moment. I think the pandemic really exposed a lot of the weaknesses in our supply chains.

We should be asking this question: Is this a rush on Canadian assets before the door closes, as we get better at reshoring?

I would like to have a government that is more interested in getting the answers to those questions before acquisitions are made. To the extent that this act may help in that—

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

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

Madam Speaker, there was an amendment at committee that would have required cabinet to be responsible, as a whole, for triggering a national security review, as opposed to just the minister. That amendment, for some reason, was ruled out of order.

Conceptually, does the member agree that it would be better to have that considered by the whole of cabinet, as opposed to a single minister?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will not speak directly to that amendment. The member may know, because he is on committee with me at my usual assignment, that I was not the member at committee. I would, of course, defer to the excellent judgment of my colleague from Windsor West on particular amendments.

I would note that it is nice to hear a Conservative advocating for a little more bureaucracy. Of course, usually, they are not the ones who say that more people should be included in decision-making but that we should have fast, effective decision-making processes. I agree with being fast and effective, but one does sometimes need to consult more. This is a deficiency of the Conservative Party. I am glad to hear that at least one member is thinking twice about that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I recognize that mergers have an impact, but hostile takeovers by foreign companies are especially worrisome. I would like him to comment on that.

Bill C-34 is important and overdue. It is a welcome development, but it is incomplete because it does not actually resolve any of the issues. I would like to know what my colleague sees as the next steps. This is, of course, a good first step, but what will happen next? What can we do to better protect our economic levers?

I am thinking about the head offices in Quebec, in particular. As a Quebecker, I am obviously going to stand up for my province.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, for a long time, Canada has had Liberal and Conservative governments that believed if an investor wanted to spend money, it was a good thing. There was no need to ask questions.

NDP members know that some things are more valuable than money. That is why we have always supported the idea of a system focused on protecting our values and our institutions. This approach leaves lots of room for people to make money without compromising our values and—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34 for the second time. This bill amends the Investment Canada Act. It is well intentioned, but there is still a lot of work to do.

The bill reinforces controls and increases the powers of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry regarding foreign investments in Canada. As we did at second reading of the bill last winter, Bloc Québécois members will continue to fully support any action aimed at better protecting Quebec's economy and Canada's economy against potentially detrimental foreign interests.

I will get right to the crux of the issue. We are debating today the amendments made by the committee. The bill is back in the House to be debated again, and I am glad that my colleagues on the committee were able to look at this closely and broaden the notion of sensitive sectors to include intellectual property and databases that contain personal information. We all agree that this improvement makes the bill stronger and that we should support it.

We also applaud the committee for rejecting the Conservatives' proposed amendments. Their proposal was intended to label every state-owned enterprise not run by our Five Eyes partners as hostile, which would have threatened Quebec's interests given that 40% of European investments in Canada are made in Quebec.

Let us take the example of Airbus, a French-German state-owned company that manufactures its A220 aircraft in Mirabel in partnership with the Quebec government. This project, which generates economic spin-offs for Quebec and Quebeckers, would have been compromised by the Conservative Party when, in fact, it is a collaboration with democratic and transparent states but, most importantly, with allies.

There is also the question of coordinating with the U.S. system. The proposed new review process essentially mirrors what is being done in the United States. Its adoption is intended to increase our American partners' confidence so that they continue to consider us a reliable and preferred partner within their supply chains. It has to be said that trade with the Americans is very important, and I think this bill is a step in that direction.

In March, when the debates clearly indicated that Bill C-34 enjoyed the support of the House, the United States agreed to include Canada in its critical minerals supply chain, which was very good news. This is a sign that the bill achieved its goal and helped strengthen our partners' trust in us.

Without a doubt, Bill C‑34 adds several useful weapons to our legislative arsenal. However, I must emphasize that these changes are still very incomplete. This is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in scrutinizing foreign investment in general. I am going to explain why.

The bill we are studying covers only those investments that could affect national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, and targeting it is justified. However, when we look at the big picture, we see that it represents only a tiny portion of all foreign investment in Canada.

I am going to present a few statistics that will undoubtedly convince my audience. Of the 1,255 investment projects submitted in 2022, only 24 would trigger a review under the new rules proposed in Bill C-34. That is just a grain of sand on a beach. Barely 2% of all investment projects would trigger a security review.

The other 1,221 investments would remain subject to the old rules. These rules provide for a review to determine whether a project is of net economic benefit to Canada. However, a review is only carried out when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold. That is the problem. I hope the government pays attention to this. Over the years, the threshold at which a review is triggered has increased considerably. Projects are getting bigger and require even more investment.

In the past 10 years alone, investment projects have more than tripled. The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review.

Getting back to last year's figures, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. Eight projects out of a total of 1,255 were submitted for review under the act. That is less than 1%, although the review rate was 10% as recently as 2009. The holes in this safety net have become far too big for it to be effective. The measure might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. That is why we need to go much further.

I would like to draw a parallel with history. In building our future, it is always important to be cognizant of the past, in order to avoid past mistakes and learn from past successes. I would like to share with the House some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.

Since the Quiet Revolution, the Quebec government has established significant economic and financial levers. These tools have allowed it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism aiming to give Quebeckers better control of their economy. This does not mean that Quebec is closed to foreign investment. We are open to it, of course, because it is a driver of growth and development. However, we believe we must support our own businesses to help them grow and seek to preserve our headquarters, which are significant decision-makers.

I will provide an example. In 1988, Bernard Landry, former premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Québécois, campaigned to promote the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which was signed with the United States and Mexico in the early 1990s. As we know, Quebec's strategy worked well when we explain economic nationalism and the protection of headquarters in terms of the large subsidiaries worldwide. Banking on the development of these businesses, we saw the growth of many flagships whose headquarters are in Quebec. The presence of these headquarters is significant. Structurally, businesses with headquarters in Quebec tend to create jobs, attract talent, and promote sourcing from local suppliers, creating a virtuous economic cycle. Companies also tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their headquarters are located.

There are also reasons for adopting this legislation. There is no shortage of examples that demonstrate the harmful effects of ill-advised foreign investments on our economy. I will name a few. The loss of decision-making levers and headquarters condemns us to be a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Everyone remembers Lowe's acquisition of Rona. Let us also consider the weakening of Montreal's financial position as a leading world financial centre; the total reliance of our businesses on foreign providers and on supply chains that are more vulnerable than ever; the possible land grabs by rich foreigners who have no interest in our social and economic priorities; and the loss of control of our natural resources, which are the greatest wealth our territory has to offer.

The Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such, it has suggested three types of tangible changes for the government to focus on. The first is to lower the review threshold so that the government has the power to review more investment projects. According to the numbers, it looks at barely 2% or even 1% of certain projects. There is a huge gap to overcome for a bill to be able to ensure better security overall, but also better protection from foreign investments. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy, such as leading-edge sectors, land ownership or control over natural resources. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents. Intellectual property is the knowledge we develop. We need to protect that knowledge, including in the pharmaceutical sector. Some Quebec companies had molecule patents that were then purchased by major pharmaceutical companies and moved overseas.

National security is important, but we must not overlook economic security and long-term prosperity. Let us be clear. This is not about closing the door on foreign investment. Quebec and Canada must remain economically open to the world.

In closing, as Jacques Parizeau wrote in 2001, before China even became a member of the World Trade Organization, “We do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves”.

Unfortunately, the weakening of the Investment Canada Act has caused those levees to break.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislation is a form of modernization, given AI, technological changes and the global scene today. When we talk about trade agreements, Canada, this government, has been more successful at negotiating and signing off on trade agreements than any other government before us, quite frankly, and it is because Canada is a safe place to invest.

Would the member across the way not agree that updating the legislation is important given what is taking place around the world and the fact that Canada is a safe haven to make investments, which we have demonstrated through the different types of trade agreements we have been able to accomplish over the last number of years?

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

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Winnipeg North.

Bill C-34 is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Only 2% of the 1,255 projects would have been reviewed had the new law been in effect. That is manifestly insufficient. That is exactly what I said in my speech. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it needs to go much further. When we look at the review thresholds in this bill, they are insufficient, and most importantly, they do not cast the net wide enough.

I think that the government still has work to do. I hope it will listen to reason and ensure that its bill and law fit the current reality and cover more projects that will be analyzed with a view to both national security and economic security.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member would like to see the legislation updated. There was an amendment at committee that would bring in, subject to review, assets that were required by a state-owned enterprise. This was not the case before. For example, if we were going to buy the shares of a state-owned enterprise, that would be reviewable. However, if we were going to buy a single mine from a mining company, the asset itself would be reviewable, based on the amendment, if it were to pass in the House.

Does the member agree with such an amendment?

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

Madam Speaker, I think I was rather clear in my speech.

The Conservatives' amendment involved rejecting any projects that do not come from the Five Eyes countries. That would threaten Quebec's economy.

I will give the same example I gave before. Forty percent of Europe's investments in Canada are made in Quebec. That means that a major part of Quebec's economy and all of the foreign investment projects would be automatically at the tipping point.

Once again, I think that, yes, it is possible to find a balance in all this, but we completely disagreed with the Conservative Party's amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed the first part of the member's speech, so I hope he forgives me if he mentioned this.

The member sits on the science and research committee with me, which is looking into situations like this, where intellectual property and industry is leaving Canada because of foreign takeovers. I have talked to companies in the hydrogen tech sector, where, when they get to a certain size, they need some investment to expand to the next stage and the investment almost always comes from abroad, so the technology goes to China, the United States or Germany.

I wonder if the member could comment on that process and how this legislation could help that or what the government could do to help keep those technologies in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, with whom I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Science and Research, and I thank him for his work.

In committee, we are examining the issue of intellectual property. Right now, we are examining the issue of national security and research. Those are very important subjects. It is important to understand that the knowledge we develop here is of interest to people abroad, people who do not always have our interests at heart. If we want that knowledge to stay in good hands and not be used by entities that certainly do not have our interests at heart, then we need to protect it. In order to do that, we need to implement robust mechanisms. We need to support the economy, but we especially need to support research here.

Right now, the federal government is on the wrong track. It must starting making major investments in science and research again so that we can prevent foreign companies from acquiring and using our local brain power.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to rise in this debate about securing the future for Canadians. With your indulgence, this is also my inaugural speech.

As I first stepped into the chamber, Fania Wedro, or Fanny as she was belovedly known, was on my mind. The last I saw her, she had offered up a bottomless spread of her legendary blintzes. I loved Fanny and even as her body began to fail it was the intensity of her eyes I remembered. This was a woman of indomitable strength. She survived the Holocaust. She built a business and a family with her husband Leo. She founded the Canadian Magen David Adom.

At the University of Calgary convocation where she received her honorary doctorate of law, the woman who was forced to shovel dirt over Nazi mass graves, which would have included her mother; the woman who escaped a fire-engulfed ghetto, taking refuge in empty pits; and hid in a forest for nearly a year, said this, “Don’t think that standing here before you is a 95-year-old woman. In front of you is a 14-year-old girl whose life was taken away, was left with no parents, no grandparents, no relatives, no one. And yet I had to go out into the world. And let me tell you...it’s a wonderful world. Spread light into the world. Cherish and respect your country.”

Shadows define the light. In her final days, as her new member of Parliament, I made a promise to Fanny that I would fight those who would tear our country down. I bade her farewell with a kiss on both her cheeks and, on her insistence, I took a blintz on the road. Fanny died days before her birthday, on August 27 this year.

As I stood at the entrance to this chamber, her memory was the blessing I carried here with me. Five days later, I watched this chamber be desecrated by the presence of a Nazi whose hate-filled collaborators were Fanny's oppressors.

In the last 21 days, I have watched the world forget “never again”, replaced instead with the horrifying resurgence of the ancient hatred unleashed by tyrants determined to unravel our alliances: an anti-Semitic regime in Iran; the anti-Semitic pogrom at a Russian airport; Beijing's anti-Semitic propaganda imposed on its people; mobs across our streets glorifying terror and death; trafficking in tropes and hearts having turned to darkness.

A soul I treasure deeply in Israel today reminded me recently that the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. Across every issue I have watched debated in this chamber, I do not see a determined government rising to this moment. I see indifference and the politics of division: the single mother who may not have a home come December, waking up to news that one part of the country would get relief from the carbon tax destroying her dreams, but that she would not; waking up to an indifferent government offering up electing Liberals as her answer rather than axing the hated carbon tax for everyone; the newcomer and young couple presented with performative announcements rather than shovels in the ground to build homes and generate jobs, unshackling the lives they wish to lead; and seniors who, after paying into the system for a lifetime, watch the invisible thief of inflation denying them the retirement they were promised and they earned. These are my neighbours. Across the country, our neighbours are hurting and, for them, the promise of Canada is broken.

As I stand here today, I represent a riding of people, including former MP Bob Benzen, a gentleman businessman, who goes to work every day for an energy sector under systemic attack by a government indifferent to the consequences of its decisions. Unlocking our resources and enabling investment is the single most important nation-building decision Canada could make today for the benefit of every Canadian.

The just transition legislation would kill directly 170,000 jobs. It would reward our rivals in Russia and Iran as they scale production, subvert sanctions and fund their war machine at discounted prices to Beijing. It would punish our friends who need more Canada.

At precisely the time when Canadian resources represent over $3 trillion that would fuel, feed and secure the world; bring home paycheques for our people; build energy projects reducing emissions; build economic reconciliation with first nations; and rebuild our Armed Forces, the Prime Minister and his radical NDP-Liberals repeat Trudeau the father's failed legacies such as the national energy program that former MP Bobbie Sparrow ferociously fought and rampant inflation of non-stop tax hikes. One retired prison guard in eastern Ontario told me that in his lifetime he had never seen the government give money for food since war time.

Do members remember what Preston Manning said when eulogizing his father, the premier who unleashed Canada's energy sector? He said, “Do not let...[apathy] do to Canada what wars and depressions and hard times were unable to do. Continue to build.” I take heart in knowing it was not just democracies that won the wars of their age but that it was also Conservatives. It was Sir John A. Macdonald who fashioned and forged what today is among the oldest democracies on earth, upon ideas of freedom and ordered liberty rather than linguistic or religious division. It was Sir Winston Churchill who was recruited, after experiments with appeasement failed, to confront fascism with iron will while cautioning about an iron curtain in the age to come. It was Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney who pursued policies of peace through strength to defeat communism and reverse bad economic decisions.

I rise in Parliament from a seat once held by Preston Manning, who built the modern Conservative movement, and by Stephen Harper, whose Conservative government, even through global economic calamity, delivered a prospering Canada at peace with itself and confident in its future. Today, in Parliament, the leader of His Majesty's official opposition, our Conservative leader, the next prime minister of Canada, has been described by Daniel Hannan, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, as the most important Conservative in the world today because his is the leadership of conviction and not division.

Amid all the crime, chaos, drugs, disorder, economic anxiety and diplomatic disaster, I have been reflecting on what constitutes the kind of strength it takes to be the fighter my neighbours elected. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes the following about government:

...it is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects—military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden—that is what the State is there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.

If what Lewis described is the purpose of the state, then what Natan Sharansky later writes about is the resiliency of the people for whom the state serves. He describes a town-square test, one in which anyone can walk into the middle of the town square and say anything they want, however odious it might be. The test distinguishes between a society of freedom and a society of fear; between a country capable of fierce debates and one ruled by state control, social unrest, and mob rule; between true patriot love at the heart of national life and the indifference of financial and moral corruption destroying it; and between those who build and those who are determined to tear everything down.

In the past eight long years, we have seen an NDP-Liberal wrecking ball take aim at and undermine 175 years of democratic tradition, resulting in broken trust across every institution in this country. We have seen Parliament and its honour be desecrated, in a chamber where government and opposition are separated by three sword lengths to engage in the fierce debates defining their age, with words not war, and where parliamentarians are elected as servants, not as masters of the people. All this is as clouds of war gather across faraway oceans: wars in the Middle East, war in Europe and the steady drumbeat of war in the lndo-Pacific, wars now threatening to overtake our streets and requiring leaders of conviction to step forward, pursue policies of peace through strength and unleash the freest, most prosperous country on earth.

Let me rise today in Parliament, the home of our democracy, as its newest member from Calgary Heritage, with an answer to the mob of woke ideologists and their allied extremists rolling across this land. Let me rise with an answer to those people, foreign and domestic, who would undo our democracy, imperil lives, erase history and attack our freedoms. Calgary Heritage is the rock upon which the woke wave of tyranny will crash and fail. Calgary Heritage will be a strong voice in a chorus of voices restoring the promise of this great country. Our heritage, our inheritance, is the very promise of Canada itself. For all the single mothers, we are going to restore the promise. For the senior, we are going to restore the promise. For the young couple and newcomer, we are going to restore the promise. We will never give in, never back down and never surrender before the cancel culture rage. To my dear and beloved friend, Fanny Wedro, I will never forget my promise to her. We will spread light into the world, we will cherish and respect this country and we will restore the promise of Canada, for her.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe for a moment that Canada is as dark and bleak as some Conservatives would try to portray, and that Canada is a broken country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The member makes reference to seniors. The reality is that Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing for seniors. In fact, he tried to bump up the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The member talked about women, specifically mothers. It was the current government that brought in the $10-a-day child care. I would encourage the member to read more than Conservative spin notes. At the end of the day, a lot of good things are happening in Canada, and one does not have to be as bleak as—

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

The member for Calgary Heritage.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was partisan invective. I think it is always enriching to hear that in the chamber. We know that the member is a master of that in all his interventions. I have been here for only a minute, but I have been able to listen to his commentary. Sometimes I wonder what kind of fantasyland he is living in.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper left this country as a singularity among its peers. It was the fastest-growing economy on the planet. Its middle class was expanding while every other middle class in the world was retracting. It established trade deals with every region of the world, from Atlantic to Pacific, preparing us for the world to come and giving Canadians the opportunity to compete, invest and grow in stature in the world. He led a principled foreign policy that did not equivocate over simple issues of good versus evil. Let me just say that the former prime minister was a giant of our times and the best prime minister of my lifetime, and that I am grateful for his service.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I almost laughed when I heard about having good debates in the House and respecting democracy, because the Conservatives are some of the worst hecklers I have heard in the House.

The member spoke specifically about single moms. I also find it very disingenuous from a lot of Conservative males when they talk about struggling single moms. I actually was a single mom. In trying to provoke fear, the member just spoke about good and evil. This is the most toxic, violent place I have been in, in years, since the new leadership of the member for Carleton. I wonder whether my respected colleague can speak to some of the behaviours of the males in his party, its constant toxic masculinity and how he feels he can change that behaviour if he truly does respect democracy.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, of the 55,000 doors that my campaign members knocked on, 24,000 of which I did with a couple of friends, I had the opportunity to meet Canadians from all walks of life, Calgarians who are hurting and struggling under the yoke of NDP-Liberal tyranny. I have watched the NDP-Liberals spend the last number of years destroying their livelihoods, imposing a carbon tax on them that makes life completely untenable.

For the women, seniors, newcomers and young couples whom I represent and serve, the savings that would be accomplished by axing the carbon tax alone would allow them to think beyond the next two or three months. It would allow them to think about the way they would respond to the inflationary pressures of the time. Mortgage payments are out of control. The cost of groceries and food is out of control. The cost of fuel is out of control. This is all because of the poverty-crushing, identity-trafficking, NDP-Liberal coalition government.

I am here proudly to represent the idea that every human being has inherent dignity and worth, and that in us, they have a fighter.

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

Madam Speaker, I was reminded, during my colleague's speech, of one of my favourite Ronald Reagan quotes, “The nine most [frightening] words in the English language are: I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.” Can the member comment on whether that is as true today of the Liberal government as it was of the Democrats when Mr. Reagan spoke of it?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, when government invents means to interfere in the lives of people, to control what they see and think online, and when government is sitting around wondering about ways in which it can try to solve problems for people, we usually see the expansion of the government doing things which are utterly unhelpful, ultimately. I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague because I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think the best government is the one that gets out of the way—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to present here today with respect to Bill C-34.

Before I start, I want to recognize a couple of local baseball teams in my riding that won provincial championships. This summer, it was the Kincardine Cardinals 13U baseball team and the Kincardine Cubs senior team. In our region in western Ontario, there is some of the best baseball in the country and maybe in North America, so it is great that both of those teams won and brought titles back to Huron—Bruce.

I would also like to recognize Mary Hughes and John Westerman from Bayfield, who hosted a tremendous event Saturday night. They invited all the volunteer firefighters from Bayfield to attend. It was a random act of generosity, and it was great to be a part of that. I congratulate them and thank all the volunteer firefighters.

When we look at the purpose of the Investment Canada Act and the depth and breadth of the goals of Industry Canada, it is probably very helpful to go to the beginning of some of the ideas and innovation in Canada, which is at the university and college level across this country. However, as some members here today with whom I am on committee would know, we are studying a number of topics at committee, one of which is state-owned interference at the university level. If Canadians read the headlines from a year ago, they would realize that there are some very concerning activities going on in Canadian universities, mainly through the People's Republic of China and some of the universities that focus on its defence.

My point is that if we think of a young person in university today, studying very hard in engineering or something to do with computers, for example, they would finish their degree, maybe get into some research afterwards and work in a few labs. However, they are really working to come up with the next idea that is going to be a game-changer for Canada, and there are all sorts of federal and provincial dollars. There are hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars that are allocated through NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC, all in the hope that this will be great for Canada, for innovation and for the next generation of businesses in this country. It is a multi-year, multi-decade, lifetime's worth of investment, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer through these organizations, in the young people, professors and researchers in our country. Out of all of those years of effort and partnerships with companies and so forth, there are good ideas and there are businesses that are started in this country. However, what is of concern today and going forward is the high cost of protection that is going to be required at Canadian universities that do the research.

At our committee last week, the SSHRC president, Ted Hewitt, announced that there is $125 million, $25 million a year, being allocated to universities to try to sift through all the applications to determine if there are safety risks to the research and whether the research is going to be brought back to the People's Republic of China and could be used against Canada or whether the idea could just basically be stolen. This is just the beginning of the high cost of protection and security in this country, which leads to looking at the Investment Canada Act and the benefit test, and many other items within the act. I will give one example, a little outside what we are looking at with Bill C-34, but in parallel: the recent purchase, within the last year, of Magnet Forensics located in Waterloo. If we look at the education and experience that those individuals have, and likely the grants they applied for with their business, whether through SR&ED, IRAP or any of the other taxpayer-led initiatives that provide ideas and support for these businesses, there is a lot of money that goes into this.

There is a lot of value being given to the Canadian taxpayer, including by the individuals who own the company and the workers who work there. However, the company was sold for $1.8 billion to a private equity company in the States. The threshold for the transaction to be reviewed is $1.9 billion.

Now, I am not saying this is a coincidence. I know there is a different threshold being proposed through this bill for different transactions. However, this one was an American company; obviously, we have a trade deal with the United States, and that was the threshold if purchased by a private equity company.

After all those years of support, all those years at university and everything else that goes into it, including SR&ED and IRAP, it is sold for $1.8 billion. I am happy for the founders. That is a great payday. However, if we think about it, eventually the majority of those jobs are going to head to the United States, and all those years are gone.

We have to ask ourselves this: Is that a net benefit for the Canadian taxpayer, the workers or the country that has provided all those dollars of support? We really have to question it.

I will give another example, and it is a company that I used to work for: Wescast Industries in Wingham, Ontario. At one time, it was the largest exhaust manifold supplier in the world, producing over 10 million manifolds a year. It was bought 11 years ago by Bohong Group, which is financed by the China Development Bank. The founders of the company, the LeVan family, were ready to move on. They needed a buyer. This one came forward.

However, I believe, if we look at it, that this acquisition should have been reviewed. It was much lower than the threshold, but if we look at the knowledge and the value that those jobs provided this country and my region, there is no way that the transaction should have been approved. Everybody in our area, of course, all the guys and gals I used to work with, knew what they were going to do. They were going to take all the ideas, skill and know-how back to their headquarters. Basically, when the bones were picked, they would shut it down and operate solely in China.

That is in fact what has happened over 11 years. That is a shame. It was a great place to work. There were so many people to get to know. There were thousands of employees across southwestern Ontario.

These are examples of where the Investment Canada Act and the net benefit test could do more. Specific to this bill, one great amendment that was accepted by the government was our amendment that set the level to zero for a review, when a company has connections or ties to being state owned. Therefore, everything would be reviewed, and we could look at it. This also lends itself to my belief that it should be more than just the minister. I realize that, in the beginning, it is not. However, at the end, the final decision should be from a cabinet that consists of members from all provinces and, hopefully, some of the territories, to really drill down and decide if it is a net benefit to the country. I think we will find that a lot of these acquisitions are not.

Another great example is one I made a note of. If members remember, a number of years ago, there was Retirement Concepts, which sold 20 or 21 retirement communities to Anbang Insurance. This should never have been approved. It was to nobody's net benefit in British Columbia. There is no way that a Chinese state-run insurance company should have been operating health care in this country.

I think we are coming to a close. I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about decreasing the threshold. This was brought forward to committee, and it ultimately passed.

The government has said in the past that, if there are ways it could improve upon legislation, it is always open to good ideas. This can be compared with the former government, which never allowed amendments unless they were government amendments.

I see this as a positive thing. The question I have for the member is as follows: Given the very nature of Canada as being what most would say is a safe place to invest, because of the environment we are in, whether it is trading agreements or the dependency Canada has, in terms of wanting to expand where it can, could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we update the act?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important. Obviously, it has been over a decade since the act was reviewed, so that is great. However, the member sometimes gets mixed up on the trade deals. If we look back at the trade deals that have been approved in the last few years, they were all done by the Conservative Party. We took it right to the one-yard line. With the European trade deal, I know that the finance minister, who was the trade minister at the time, fumbled about 10 times before she got it into the end zone.

The member for Abbotsford, Gerry Ritz and Stephen Harper are really the people who did 99% of the work. Yes, the Liberals bobbled the football into the end zone, and they get the touchdown, but the heavy lifting was done by our government in previous years.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It sounds like he really studied the bill. When we give speeches in the House, I think it is important that we truly pay attention to the bill's content in order to elevate the debate and have meaningful discussions.

My colleague spoke at length about what he would like us to do to dive deeper into this matter. I would like to know what he would like the government to do when analyzing transactions. I have a specific case in mind. A few years ago, in my riding, Rona was sold. Because the purchase price was so large it exceeded the minimum threshold, the sale was reviewable under the Investment Canada Act. I wanted to know on what basis the Liberal minister at the time authorized the sale. I filed an access to information request, but the answer I got was that no records relevant to my request could be found. We wanted to know which analyses and studies the minister based his decision on. Apparently, he did not base his decision on any documents at all.

I want to ask my colleague whether he believes that due diligence is important when analyzing transactions.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is from my neighbour, who sits right behind me. He is a decent fellow; he has not hit me in the back of the head yet, so I appreciate that.

The fines and penalties are increasing. It is so important for businesses to know that Canada is open for business, but if someone is going to do an acquisition, they have to go into the office and disclose what their intentions are with the Canadian business and how they would like to conduct themselves. To answer the member's question, today there is not enough of that done in the beginning. Then we get into these 11th-hour scenarios where it is not good for the business or the government of the day, and the wrong decision is usually made.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague mentioned Anbang. Retirement Concepts is a company operating a retirement centre in my backyard, basically, in Summerland. It was in trouble before Anbang, a Chinese-owned insurance company, got involved; that was approved, as the member said, probably mistakenly. Then, Anbang was taken over by the Chinese government. The NDP put forward an amendment to the bill before us that would trigger a review, with a previously okayed deal, if there was a subsequent takeover by a state-owned enterprise.

Could the member comment on that and why the amendment did not pass through at committee?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is not wrong. That deal should never have been approved. There is no way. I remember reading about the deal, and I thought it was bad. This is why it is so important that they come, in the beginning, to the office and disclose. That would give the government and the officials plenty of time, and it should be reviewed at committee, as well. We should give the committees more power.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk on the update to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

When it comes to business investment, it is clear that, after eight years under the Prime Minister and the Liberals, the government is not worth the cost. Since coming into power, business investment per employee in Canada has actually dropped 20%. At the same time, business investment per employee in the U.S. has actually increased 14%. It puts things into perspective in terms of Canada's dropping productivity and, as we go forward, the fear of declining prosperity in our country. What is more shocking is that, in the very final year of the Harper government, Canada's business investment, as a percentage of GDP, was actually higher than that of the U.S. After eight years of the government, we are at about 15% lower.

According to the National Bank of Canada, for the first time ever, business investment is now lower in this country than housing investment is. We can think about all the manufacturing, oil production and everything else. The investment is actually lower than it is in housing.

Manufacturing capital stock is the lowest that we have had since 1988. Two-thirds of our 15 main industries experienced declines in business investments under the government, including wholesale trade, accommodation and food services, utilities, professional services and manufacturing. All these numbers fell prepandemic; this is not because of the pandemic.

The Business Council of B.C. has issued a report on investment in Canada, calling it “Stuck in the slow lane”. What better title is there for what is going on right now with investment in our country than being stuck in the slow lane? The report noted that, out of 38 members in the OECD, Canada is going to have the slowest economic growth over the next decades. We will have the lowest real GDP per capita growth in the OECD going forward. That has been brought up, I think, in previous speeches about Bill C-34 in this House. The report lists several reasons for this, among them, inefficient regulatory approvals. Does anyone remember Bill C-69? Of course, we have seen Bill C-69 ruled against by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the government will recognize what the Supreme Court has said and eliminate Bill C-69; however, Bill C-69 was only one of many regulatory burdens added by the government that has chased away business investment in this country.

The Business Council of B.C. also noted punitive tax rates as companies grow; lack of relief for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the carbon tax regime; and high internal trade restrictions. Something also noted in this report is that our anemic business investment would be all the worse if it backed Alberta out. Alberta has the highest per capita investment in the entire country. If we back out Alberta, our numbers are even worse. What do we get with the government? Every possible regulatory move, every possible attempt to strangle the growth in Alberta. Therefore, we have one province driving most of the business investment in this country, and the government is trying to destroy it.

There will be some members across the way, such as, perhaps, the member for Winnipeg North, who will get up to ask this: Are there not some things the government has done? Would we not agree that it is good? There are some things the government has done to spur business investment in Canada, such as green-lighting the purchase of ITF Technologies by a China-based company. This was a deal that the Harper Conservatives had kiboshed. The Liberals reversed it and allowed a China-based company to buy out ITF Technologies. ITF has done national security work with National Defence, and the government overrode the ban on a purchase by a China-based company. We should remember that China's national intelligence law of 2017 requires companies to “support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work”.

I will read that part again. It says Chinese companies “shall support, assist and co-operate with state intelligence work”, and we have the government approving the sale of a technology company that has done work for National Defence. It waived the security review of the Chinese takeover of Vancouver's Norsat, despite Norsat being involved in communication tech for Public Safety Canada, the defence department and the Coast Guard. Norsat had also done work for the Pentagon. The U.S. and our Five Eyes allies asked us not to allow the sale to go through, but it did.

When not allowing the sale of sensitive tech companies, the Liberals are going out of their way to bring Chinese regime companies into our security systems, such as Nuctech, which my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil talked about. Nuctech is called the Huawei of scanners. It is a Chinese-based company partially owned by the Chinese state. It has been fined, charged and convicted around the world over various fraud, regulatory and spying issues, and the government went out of its way to give it a contract to bring its technology into every embassy we have around the country.

The CBSA, which is meant to protect us, for some reason basically jury-rigged the RFP to ensure that only Nuctech, ahead of two Canadian companies, one in Quebec and one in Calgary, got the contract. It wrote in the requirements the exact specifications of a type of scanner, down to exactly how many inches across and how many inches high, and guess what. Only one company in all of the world happened to have a scanner that was 33 inches across and 21 inches high: Nuctech. Oddly enough, PSPC warned the government not to buy it, and the CBSA went ahead anyway.

When this was exposed, the government said it would hire an outside consulting company to do a review. Apparently, McKinsey was not available at the time, so it hired Deloitte, and for a quarter of a million dollars, Deloitte did what had been done at the mighty OGGO. Of course, I cannot make a speech without mentioning the operations and estimates committee. Deloitte exposed the fallacy of buying equipment from Chinese security companies. For a quarter of a million dollars, it came out with a four-page report that basically said Canada should not buy sensitive IT technology from despotic regimes.

I went to the West Edmonton Mall that week with the report and randomly asked kids and adults, strangers, about this, and they all laughed. Not one person said we should buy sensitive technology from despotic regimes.

I appreciate that the government is finally getting around to updating the issue with Bill C-34, but one major change the Conservatives would like to see is taking away the ability of a minister to make the final decision. We would like to see a minister bring it to cabinet so that cabinet is consulted. For an issue as important as our state security, too much power is left with the minister. The minister should be required to bring the purchase of a sensitive company elsewhere. Whether it is a mining company or a tech company, it should not be the role of the minister to decide. We have seen the government repeatedly bring bills to the House that would give ministerial power over such a thing, and we would like to see that change.

There were a couple of other amendments we brought up that were shut down, and I would like the government to reconsider them. One of them would modify the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state. This goes back to my previous comment about the Chinese intelligence law that forces those companies to act and assist in concert with that regime.

I will just briefly bring up a couple of other amendments that we would like to see. One is listing specific sectors necessary to preserve our national security rather than a systematic approach. Another is exempting non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the security review.

The House resumed from October 30 consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-34, which would update the Investment Canada Act. This act is designed to do two main things. The first is to ensure that foreign investments in Canada have a net benefit to Canadians. The second is to ensure that foreign investments are not detrimental to our national security.

Many Canadians, especially Canadians of my age, might know this act better by its former name, The Foreign Investment Review Act. In its early days in the 1970s, it was brought in to deal with a rash of foreign buyouts, mainly American, of Canadian companies.

The Foreign Investment Review Agency approved about 90% of the transactions it dealt with, but was criticized by both Liberals and Conservatives for actually doing its job by blocking some proposals that did not show a benefit to Canadians.

Therefore, Brian Mulroney brought in the Investment Canada Act in 1984. He replaced the Foreign Investment Review Agency with Investment Canada, saying that he wanted to welcome foreign investment. True to his word, under his government, Investment Canada did not block a single foreign investment transaction, not one. The Liberal governments that followed Mulroney, under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, had the same record, not one application blocked.

The Harper government was a different story. Harper blocked the sale of British Columbia-based Macdonald, Dettwiler to the American company Alliant based on both financial and critical technology arguments.

On the other hand, in 2012, the Harper government allowed the $15-billion sale of Canada oil company Nexen to the China National Offshore Oil Company, owned by the Chinese government, and the $6-billion sale of Progress Energy to Malaysia-based Petronas. However, the same day, Harper changed the Investment Canada Act to block state-owned foreign investment in Canadian oil and gas companies, essentially closing the barn door after the horses had left.

Therefore, legislation regarding regulating foreign takeovers of Canadian companies has changed from time to time over the past decades. Foreign investment trends have changed as well. The share of U.S. investment in Canada has declined over the past few decades, but it still leads the pack followed by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Japan, China, Germany, Brazil, France and Bermuda, although, I suspect the high placement of Luxembourg and Bermuda reflects more where Canadian companies are hiding their profits than real sources of investment.

However, it is clear that we need to keep up with the times in regulating foreign investment, and Bill C-34 is another example of that.

Information and data are the new oil, and earlier versions of the Investment Canada Act were essentially blind to that. The bill before us introduces a pre-implementation filing requirement for certain investments to give earlier visibility to situations where there is a risk that a foreign investor would gain access to sensitive assets or information immediately on closing.

I have talked to numerous tech companies over the past few years. One story I hear repeatedly is that small Canadian tech companies work hard to develop a new technology, say in hydrogen energy development or AI advances. However, when it comes to expand their companies to really get their product to market, they need investment. Too often in the Canadian tech ecosystem, these companies simply get bought out by bigger companies from the United States, Europe or China. With those sales go the intellectual property that represents the core of their company's value.

The present version of the Investment Canada Act allows companies to report takeovers after the fact. However, if critical intellectual property is involved, it is usually too late to stop the transfer of that information, if we find out about the transaction 30 days later, for instance. It is not like the old days when the main value of a company was in the factories it owned. This new pre-implementation filing could help put a stop to that where necessary.

There are several other improvements that provide more flexibility for the minister to act and better manage the entire process.

What would make the act even better? First, the act should mandate the review of an acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of a company previously reviewed by the ICA, and I would like to spend some time on a story that illustrates why this is needed.

There is a company called Retirement Concepts that owns and operates a number of seniors residences in British Columbia, long-term care homes. One of them is the Summerland Seniors Village just outside the federal riding I represent but within the provincial riding I live in. When I first sought to enter politics 10 years ago, I was involved in a provincial election in that riding.

The Summerlands Seniors Village was involved in a tragic story of a local family that lost both its mother and its father in 2012 to poor care and accidents. I met with members of the family and heard the heart-wrenching story of neglect that had taken the lives of their parents.

After that incident, the provincial government demanded that Retirement Concepts hire more staff, but managers claimed that no one was applying. I am guessing that a combination of low wages and overworked conditions had a lot to do with that.

In 2016, Chinese insurance giant Anbang, then a privately held company, bought Retirement Concepts, a transaction that was reviewed and okayed by the federal government's investment review process. Less than a year after that purchase was okayed, the Chinese government seized the Anbang company and jailed its chairman for fraud. Perhaps it knew something that the Canadian government missed when that review was carried out.

Suddenly, we have the Chinese government owning a company that is one of the largest providers of long-term care in Canada and certainly the largest in B.C.. Not only is it one of the largest providers of long-term care, but it is known to provide very poor care at times for our seniors.

In fact, in 2020, the provincial government in British Columbia had to seize management control of four care homes run by Retirement Concepts because of the continuing problems with poor care. It returned that control just over a year later, but it is an indication of the general lack of priority Retirement Concepts had placed on the care of seniors.

At present, there are no provisions in the Investment Canada Act that would allow Investment Canada or the minister to be able to review the subsequent acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of an ICA-approved takeover or merger by a foreign private company. We have to change this.

The NDP put forward an amendment that would allow for the review of a takeover by a state-owned enterprise. This can be done by establishing the power to require a mandatory divestment of all Canadian assets by entities in these specific circumstances.

As an aside, in the case of long-term care homes, the NDP is very much in favour of a move to a future where seniors' care is given the same respect that all health care gets, a future where no long-term care homes are owned by private companies that put profit ahead of the well-being of our seniors.

This is an example of where we could and should take a big step in that direction.

Another factor to consider in investment review is to prevent the loss of publicly funded research and development from leaving the country, resulting in the loss of jobs and, basically, the theft of taxpayer dollars.

A company called Nemak received $3 million dollars from the government's automotive supplier innovation program. However, in 2020, Nemak closed its plant in Windsor, where those funds had been used to create new products for General Motors, and transferred that technology and those jobs to its operations in Mexico.

An NDP amendment, passed in committee, would allow for the review of a foreign takeover to consider the intellectual property whose development was funded by the federal government and to issue remedies to retain the benefits in Canada. Therefore, a situation like that of Nemak would not happen again.

I do not have time today to go over all the improvements this bill would bring to the foreign investment space in Canada or to go over all the improvements that we had hoped it would bring but fell short.

In this new world, where ideas and data are often more valuable than the natural resources we have so long relied on for our wealth, we need a new regulatory framework to protect our industries, our workers and our companies. Bill C-34 is a step in that direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the idea that this is a modernization? It has been a number of years since the legislation has been changed to the degree that is being proposed today. Because of technological changes over the past decade, changes to the legislation are badly needed. That is one reason why we hope to see Bill C-34 pass as quickly as possible.

Could he comment on the importance of getting this passed before Christmas?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, things have really changed since this was last updated in, I think, 2009 or 2012. Before that, when I was young, this whole regulatory system was brought in because manufacturing plants were largely going south of the border.

Things have changed. Canada is a leader in several aspects of real high-tech research and development. I mentioned hydrogen. There is fusion and AI that we hear a lot about. These are things that move very rapidly, and almost all the value in the company is not in the offices it has or its labs but in ideas and intellectual property. This is something that has really changed. One thing we need to do is change the regulations to protect that from leaving Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's speech, particularly because 30-year NDP House leader Stanley Knowles would not have been impressed with the NDP voting for closure and eliminating debate in the House once again.

Aside from that, this report stage debate is specifically about our amendment to the bill to return the cabinet decision-making process to the beginning and the end decisions on whether an acquisition by a foreign entity poses a national security review.

The hon. member's colleague from Windsor West has done some good work on this bill as well. Will he and his party be supporting our amendment at report stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there is something to be said for both methods, whether we simply require ministerial decision-making or we want it to go to cabinet. Having the minister being the decision-maker in this case adds some nimbleness to it, and there is something to be said about nimbleness and a quick decision. Some of these transactions are happening very quickly in the financial markets. We all know how quickly they can happen.

I have not been part of the committee discussions, so I do not want to presume to say where we will end up on this. However, I can see both sides to that story. I will wait to see what happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that the NDP has once again decided to support a government gag order. I find this odd because, in general, the role of the opposition parties is to challenge the government. Their role is to try and determine whether the government is doing a good job, to ask questions, to try to improve things.

We get the impression that the NDP is just rubber-stamping everything that the Liberals come up with. I question the usefulness of having a party like that in the House of Commons, if it votes in favour of everything the government tables.

Is there any critical thinking happening at all on the NDP side, or are the New Democrats completely blinded by a fear of ending up in an election or holding the Liberals to account?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been concentrating and looking at the past voting records in this Parliament, he could see the NDP voting against the government on a number of occasions. We are still strongly debating with the government on issues, and this bill is an example of that. We thought the bill did not come up to the standards we would have liked. We put forward several good ideas for amendments in this bill, and some were accepted.

We are always focused on improving the lives of Canadians and improving the field for Canadian businesses. That is what we concentrate on. When it is time to move on, it is time to move on. We see parties such as the Conservative Party do nothing but block everything. We have had three concurrence motions in the past week, which are just designed to waste time. We have to move along and get things done. This bill is very much needed, and we are happy to support its movement through Parliament.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, at report stage. I will get into the particulars of the bill shortly, but before I do, let me say that in a little more than an hour and a half, Liberal members across the way will have a choice. They can vote for our common-sense Conservative motion to axe the tax on all home heating, or they can do the bidding of their boss, the Prime Minister, and sell out their constituents.

These are Liberal MPs from Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. We will see whose side they are on, because their colleagues from Atlantic Canada, including the member for Avalon, received an exemption for Atlantic Canadians on home heating oil. However, it seems that all other Liberal MPs are so useless that their constituents, including my constituents, Albertans, have received nothing. We will see whose side Liberal MPs, including the member for Edmonton Centre and the member for Calgary Skyview, are on very shortly.

With respect to this legislation, when it was presented in the House at second reading stage, it was a modest bill. It was, frankly, inadequate in terms of strengthening the foreign investment review process, which takes into account the net benefit for Canada, as well as national security considerations. However, the good news is that the bill has been significantly improved thanks to four Conservative amendments that were adopted at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, although opposed by the Liberals.

I would submit that the most important of those amendments is to require a mandatory security review for investments by foreign state-owned enterprises in which Canada does not have a trading agreement with the countries.

This legislation marks the first major revamp of the Investment Canada Act since 2009. It goes without saying the foreign investment environment has changed considerably in that time, with foreign bad actors, including Beijing, posing an increased threat to our security and sovereignty.

PRC firms work closely with Beijing's military and intelligence apparatuses to gain information about foreign companies, as well as to acquire their technology. Professor Balding, who testified at the industry committee in 2020, indicated that PRC firms are actually given a list each year of foreign assets to acquire, underscoring the threat posed by Beijing.

The fact that we have this increasing threat demonstrates that the Investment Canada Act is long overdue for an update. However, for the past eight years, the Prime Minister has been asleep at the switch, while Beijing has attacked our sovereignty, security and democracy on his watch.

Beijing has used its embassy and consulates to interfere in our elections and to target sitting members of Parliament for daring to speak up and call out Beijing's egregious human rights violations, including the genocide being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims as we speak. This regime has set up illegal police stations to harass, intimidate and repatriate Chinese Canadians, and it is spreading disinformation on a mass scale to divide Canadians.

In the face of that, the response of the Prime Minister has been to do nothing, to turn a blind eye. Indeed, the only concrete measure that the Prime Minister took was to expel one Beijing diplomat, but only after he got caught for keeping the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in the dark about how he and his family were targeted by a diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate.

For the past eight years, Beijing has effectively been given the green light to acquire vast amounts of farmland. It has gained a foothold with respect to critical infrastructure and strategic resources, including minerals. Even worse than that, we have a government, under the Prime Minister's watch, that has refused to undertake national security reviews and has given the green light to Beijing-controlled enterprises to invest in Canada and acquire Canadian companies, to the detriment of Canada's national security. In so doing, it has also caused irreparable damage to Canada's reputation among our Five Eyes allies.

One egregious example of that, and I stress that there are many examples I could cite, was when the Beijing-controlled Hytera sought to acquire the B.C. communications technology company Norsat, which worked with National Defence Canada, Public Safety Canada and the Pentagon. Our U.S. ally said to put a pause on this takeover by Hytera, but the Liberal minister of the day, in his infinite wisdom, ignored the U.S. and gave the green light without any security review.

Last year, Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage by the U.S. This underscores the degree of recklessness on the part of the government to give the green light, not to mention the damage it has done to our reputation with our most important ally, the United States.

As bad as that is, one would think that after a company such as Hytera was facing 21 espionage charges in the U.S., it would be enough for the government to decide not to do business with Hytera. However, one would be wrong; it was not enough for the current Liberals. Eight months later, the Liberals gave the green light for a contract with the RCMP to sell technology to protect sensitive RCMP communications equipment for espionage from a subsidiary of none other than Hytera, a company charged with 21 counts of espionage. One cannot make this stuff up. It is scandalous incompetence with real national security implications.

In 2020, to make it appear that he was actually taking Beijing's interference seriously, the minister of industry announced a policy of enhanced scrutiny for investments from foreign state-owned enterprises. No sooner had he announced the policy than he disregarded it, giving the green light to another Beijing state-owned enterprise to acquire a mining company that operates the largest lithium mine in Canada. Now, all that lithium is controlled by Beijing.

In closing, let me say that when it comes to protecting Canada's national security from authoritarian states such as Beijing, the government cannot be trusted. The good news, however, is that this bill would require the reckless government to undertake the security reviews that it should have taken but did not. On that basis, it is a much stronger bill going forward, thanks to the Conservatives and no thanks to the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech. Perhaps he could explain further the extent to which the government has failed to take Canada's national security seriously and necessitated this. The review is long overdue and the threat environment has changed, but this bill, if passed, would in some ways force the government to do things that it ought to have had enough sense to do in the first place.

Could the member comment?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to force the government to do what it needed to do and had not done before by lowering the threshold from $512 million to zero with respect to investments from foreign-controlled enterprises. This is a government that announced a policy. The minister announced a policy in 2020. What good is a policy if the policy is not followed? That policy had no teeth and the minister was not sincere about seeing it through, so this bill is an improvement.

I will say that there were other amendments that Conservatives supported but these Liberals opposed, that would have gone a long way to strengthen the bill, including the fact that Beijing acquires companies and investments, sometimes through third party entities. We have supported an amendment that would have allowed for a proper review where those assets were then sold to a Beijing or other foreign state-controlled enterprise. The Liberals voted against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not a part of this committee but my colleagues do a really good job of passing on information around what is happening. I am wondering if my colleague can speak a little bit more around the amendment that was put forward by the NDP to clause 8, which speaks to the importance of reviewing a foreign investment or takeover to consider the intellectual property whose development was funded in part, or in whole, by the federal government and to issue remedies to retain the benefits in Canada. My understanding of this was that it was to ensure that the effect of the investment on the use and protection of personal information of Canadians is at the forefront of this legislation.

I am wondering if the member can speak to this amendment and share a little bit further information around the importance of protecting the personal information of Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in short, Conservatives fully supported that amendment around IP. It is an amendment that would have strengthened the bill but the Liberals did not support it. They did not support that amendment and they did not support our amendments.

As far as the Bloc Québécois goes, I believe the Bloc opposed the amendment. I would say in regard to this bill that the Liberals have been soft on national security issues and standing up to the likes of hostile states such as Beijing. By contrast, the Bloc has not been much better. It has been all over the map and completely incoherent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond right away to my Conservative colleague, who is criticizing us for not supporting their amendment to Bill C‑34.

The Bloc Québécois did not support the Conservatives' amendment to Bill C‑34 because it was too broad. It was so broad that it included just about every investment not originating with one of the Five Eyes countries, the Commonwealth allies or certain major countries in the world. Unfortunately, my colleague may not be aware of this, but Quebec accounts for 40% of European investments in Canada. The amendment would have discouraged a whole lot of investments.

We suggested another solution. We suggested lowering the review thresholds, which had been raised so high that we ended up with a net benefit review threshold of $1.7 billion. In 2015, that figure was about $300 million. Why has the review threshold skyrocketed like this, and why do the Liberals seem to think that is okay?

I would like to know if the Conservatives are okay with it too.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of undertaking reviews, the amendment that Conservatives put forward was specifically targeted at countries that we do not have trade agreements with. For those countries that we do have agreements with, and that includes the European Union and most European countries, that automatic review would not apply.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C‑34 at third reading stage. I feel like I am going back in time because even though I am not a member of the committee that studied Bill C‑34, I had the opportunity to speak to it at second reading. That was on February 8, if I am not mistaken. I find it fascinating to see what has changed in the bill between February 8 and now, or rather, what has not changed in Bill C‑34.

At the time, we said that it was an interesting bill that would enhance security, for example in terms of foreign investments in sectors where we feel that national security might be jeopardized or in danger. We said that we agreed.

However, we also said that we should take the opportunity to examine another thing while studying Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, which includes a mechanism for initiating a study or review of an investment when it exceeds a certain threshold, in order to determine whether the investment is of net benefit to Canada. That is what Bill C‑34 says. We thought we should go a little further than just considering the issue of national security and also question the effectiveness of this legislation in terms of protecting our head offices.

When a foreign entity comes to Canada and says that they want to buy a certain brand or company for a lot of money, and when that purchase would have an impact on our entire supply chain, our infrastructure, our habits and our competition system, one of the first things we should instinctively do is look at whether it is a good investment or not. Unfortunately, that was not included in Bill C‑34 at the time. It is still not in Bill C‑34 today. There are mechanisms, but they are weak. They are extremely weak.

Back when I was elected in 2015, the review threshold was set at $300 million. That was okay, because at least some reviews were being done. Maybe it might have been better if it were lower, but a threshold of $300 million would already capture many businesses. The government could say that a review would be done to see if allowing a foreign business or investor to buy a business worth $350 million, $400 million or $600 million would be of net benefit to Canada. I thought it was a good thing. There was a baseline.

The problem is that, since the Liberals took office, the threshold has jumped. Today, it is no longer $300 million. It is $1.7 billion. I challenge anyone in the House to go search online and find a Quebec business worth more than $1.7 billion. There really are not many. There are maybe a handful, no more than 10 for sure.

In theory, a wealthy investor, or several wealthy investors, from any country in the world could swoop in and buy everything, or nearly everything, and the government would not make a peep because each of the transactions is less than $1.7 billion. According to the government, that would not be a big deal. That is the reality of this government's laissez-faire attitude. What is worse is that the government has exacerbated the situation over the years, saying that things are fine that way.

In Quebec, we take the notion of national interest to heart. It is important to us. However, in a self-proclaimed postnational state like Canada, nobody even knows what a nation is anymore. How can the government know what is in the national interest if it does not even know what a nation is?

The problem relates to a significant difference between the economies of Quebec and Canada. It may be an underlying factor in the government's non-response or hands-off approach to this issue. Canada has a branch-plant economy, which means that, naturally, a foreign company that sets up shop in Canada will often have a Canadian head office. The company will do all the buying, but it will keep a head office in Canada and manage its Canadian interests from there. It might well belong to someone who is 1,000 kilometres outside the country, but that is no big deal because the company still has a small head office here. Where is the head office usually located? It will be located in Toronto, not in Montreal, Quebec City, Shawinigan or Boucherville.

That is sad because many entrepreneurs in Quebec are working hard to build a strong ecosystem. We decided to build an entrepreneurial economy, rather than the type of branch-plant economy that is part of Canada's vision, if it even has one.

The Bloc Québécois has a constructive vision. We simply want to know what is happening. We want investments to be reviewed. We are not saying that we are against investment, but we want to at least know whether an investment is in our interest before it is authorized.

I am very disappointed. The fact that the government is not even thinking about this is problematic. The government does not even want to know whether investments are in our interest or not. If the transaction is less than $1.7 billion, the government closes its eyes, signs on the dotted line and everything is good. That approach is not working and, unfortunately, we are going to have to resolve that problem. If Canada does not want to solve this problem within the framework of the Canadian Confederation, then an independent Quebec will certainly be able to solve it when it has all the tools at its disposal to make its own decisions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

This bill would improve our ability to respond to changing circumstances that affect Canada's economic well-being and to remain vigilant in upholding our national security. More specifically, I want to focus on how our government's efforts to modernize the Investment Canada Act would help protect the intangible assets of Canadian businesses, which are the cornerstone of economic growth in a 21st-century economy.

As all members are fully aware, intangible assets, such as intellectual property, trade secrets and data, are of immense importance to our economic vitality and prosperity. As such, our country and other open economies are increasingly being targeted by hostile actors, which pose a threat to our national security, continued economic well-being and prosperity.

Consequently, our government is taking timely action to respond to evolving threats to our economic well-being and national security. Foreign investment certainly fuels innovation and assists businesses to succeed and grow. However, I want to emphasize that we should not compromise when safeguarding Canada's economic interests. As members will note, we should be laser-focused on striking the right balance between attracting foreign investment to help Canadian businesses grow and remaining mindful of the need to protect our intangible assets and intellectual property.

Highly innovative Canadian companies are at the forefront of developing new technologies, such as quantum computing, biotechnology, medical devices and innovative clean energy. Attracting investments to actualize innovation is complex and challenging, yet the safety and protection of Canadians is our government's number one priority. Canada must have a robust and flexible tool kit to protect Canada's interests from national security threats, which come in many forms.

We heard from multiple witnesses on this topic in the context of hearings arranged by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Those witnesses shared their expertise to highlight that hostile state and non-state actors are increasingly pursuing strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property for uses that are incompatible with our national interest and economic outlook.

We also heard witnesses signal how foreign investment can be a conduit for foreign influence activities that seek to weaken our long-term economic prosperity. Around the world, foreign investment regimes are getting finetuned to better incorporate national security considerations. Our international partners are taking action to respond to shifting technological and geopolitical threats by amending their investment screening regimes.

The U.S. overhauled its foreign direct investment laws in 2018 by adding new types of transactions to government review. For the first time ever, the U.S. also mandated notifications in transactions involving critical technologies. These regulations came into effect in February 2020.

Similarly, Australia updated its regime in January 2021 to grant its government the discretion to require mandatory notification for transactions with a national security dimension. The same can be said for the United Kingdom, which introduced a new stand-alone regime for national security and investments in January 2021.

The U.K. established a mandatory obligation to secure clearance for transactions where control of a business was acquired in 17 sensitive sectors, to be secured before the transaction is completed. The U.K. also introduced legislation that allows the government to impose interim orders while the review is being conducted.

I reference such changes in the U.S., Australia and the U.K. to make a simple point: Canada's national security review authorities under the ICA have been in place since 2009. Quite often, changes introduced by our allies are meant to ensure that they catch up to where we already are. Given our track record, Bill C-34 is the latest in a series of actions our government is taking to make our regime more robust, responsive and flexible.

I would remind members that in March 2021 we updated the national security guidelines to advise that investments involving sensitive personal data, sensitive technologies and critical minerals, as well as investments by state-owned or state-influenced investors, would face enhanced security. The next step came in 2022 when we issued a new policy for review of foreign investments originating from Russia.

In 2022, we also introduced a new voluntary filing mechanism for investors intending to obtain greater regulatory certainty with the same statutory deadlines as a mandatory filing. In addition, we now have five years to review and adopt measures regarding an investment in the absence of a voluntary filing.

As members can see, Bill C-34 is just the latest effort to ensure Canada's foreign investment review regime represents the gold standard. Fundamentally, our government believes that an effective investment review regime must adapt to changing world dynamics and business practices. To respond to the evolving and accelerating threat environment, now is the right time to modernize key aspects of the ICA.

Bill C-34 would better align Canada with our international partners and allies. One of the ways our regime would align more closely with allies includes introducing the new requirement for prior notification of certain investments. This particular amendment would ensure that Canada has greater oversight over investments in certain sensitive sectors, especially when they give investors material access to assets and non-public technical information, such as cutting-edge intellectual property and trade secrets, once the investment is finalized. It would enable the government to prevent potentially irreparable damage. Investors would have to provide notice of the transaction within the timelines specified in the regulations.

A second important change is that it would provide our government the authority to impose interim conditions on an investment during the course of a national security review to prevent potential national security injury taking place during the time the review is being conducted. Another amendment would allow Canada to share case-specific information with international allies to support national security assessments.

Finally, the ICA includes a provision to allow for closed material proceedings. As such, the act would introduce new rules that would allow for more effective judicial review of national review decisions by allowing the use of sensitive information, while also protecting such commercially sensitive information from disclosure. Ultimately, these significant amendments would ensure that Canada's tool kit evolves and adapts to the changing global threat landscape.

It is for these reasons that I believe the House should support this bill and these new amendments. Where national security is concerned, we should never hesitate to take decisive action.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about some of our allies. He spoke about Australia and the U.K. and how they are moving toward our system of examination of these matters on an international basis.

Does he have any information whether those two very important allies actually have a process where one minister determines whether one gets past a security review in those countries? Frankly, that is the worst part of this bill. Can he comment on that, please?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member is fully aware, I did make reference to three countries but the purpose of those references was to say that our regulations are to be fine-tuned every so often. The reason for that, as I tried to emphasize in my comments, is that we face a world that has a changing global threat landscape.

In this particular case there are a few aspects of this bill that would require that we draw on the expertise of not just one minister but several departments. However, that is a good thing because we need to make sure that the regime we currently have in place is robust and flexible and will allow our authorities to thoroughly protect Canadians.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, foreign investment has generally been based on the size of the transaction and/or the sector in the transaction. It has now come to the point where size or sector does not actually matter, in terms of security review and the sensitivities involved. Small companies can create security difficulties for Canada. Sectors one would never have thought of can create difficulties for Canada, particularly dual-use sectors.

I am interested in the hon. member's comments as to whether this bill addresses this dramatic change in what should be available to or reviewed by the Canadian authorities.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, my hon. colleague has rightly emphasized that our regime, as a general rule, has thresholds in place that allow us to screen investments coming in. In other instances, it is sectoral because there are various sectors of the economy that are vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, if you will.

These have been ongoing changes. I made reference to changes that we made in 2021 and 2022. This does not mean that if we bring in some of these new provisions, they are necessarily replacing all of the old safeguards that were there previously.

Our intention has always been to have the gold standard when it comes to screening investments coming in. This will ensure that we will continue to lead the way in having a good, robust system in place, which does evolve as security threats around the world evolve.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House.

Before I really dive into my speech on Bill C-34, I just want to acknowledge Marilyn Bouw, the president of the Springfield Agricultural Society, for hosting my wife and me at their annual banquet. She is a tremendous advocate and supporter of agricultural communities in her riding of Springfield and broader.

I also want to mention Mayor Myron Dyck from Niverville, Manitoba, who also hosted my wife and me this weekend, together with his wife Shari, at the Niverville Heritage Centre annual fundraising banquet. The Niverville Heritage Centre does a tremendous amount of good work in the community, especially supporting our vulnerable seniors.

I thank Niverville Heritage Centre very much.

The interesting thing about what came up this past weekend at both of those events was the issue of the carbon tax. Folks at both venues talked to me about the carbon tax vote that we had here earlier in the House today. They said, “How is it going to go, Mr. Falk? Is this a confidence vote? Will this actually bring us into an election?”

We know that the Liberals want to quadruple the carbon tax and we know that, already, Canadians right across the country are experiencing significant increases to the cost of living and affordability is top of mind for almost all Canadians.

They asked me—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am struggling to find any kind of link between what the member is talking about and the bill that is before the House right now. We have had a number of opportunities to discuss the subject that he is trying to discuss but, right now, we are talking about this bill.

Perhaps you could encourage him to get back to the subject at hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is a little flexibility during the speeches, of course. I remind members who are getting up to speak on bills before the House that it needs to be relevant to the bill. They should mention either the bill or what is in the bill.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is very good advice. I was paving the pathway to this bill on how this carbon tax is negatively impacting investment in Canada.

The Liberals today had an opportunity to reduce the cost of living for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and failed to do that. They were joined by the Bloc. The Bloc members had an opportunity to speak for Quebeckers to make sure their cost of living was also being reduced and they failed to do that.

The members for Winnipeg North, Winnipeg South, Winnipeg South Centre, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, who are Liberal members, could have reduced the cost of home heating for their constituents, but voted against this motion to expand the carbon tax pause to all Canadians. It is very disappointing that their constituents cannot even count on them to represent them adequately here in the House.

Let me now dive headlong into my speech and carry on with that.

We have seen before where the current government subjects a bill to being discussed, even this critical one here, and this is something we should have seen long ago. It requires legislation of course on the whole issue of Invest in Canada, but this legislation presented by the government lands so far from what is needed, so far from the reality of the problem that it seeks to address, that it is really difficult to see a common-sense solution here. This is the kind of stuff we continually get from the Liberals. We see this on their approach to the environment, immigration, the economy, guns, drugs and the list goes on.

There is a common series of steps the Liberals go through when they encounter these various problems. First, they deny there is a problem. Once that stops working for them, then they start to blame the Conservatives. Then they start blaming Canadians. Finally, when they run of out people to blame, once the PM's wizards and the PMO finally recognize that something needs to be done before even the CBC starts dumping on them, then they put something like this forward. However, it takes all of those things to happen before the Liberal government takes steps to address real issues. When they do finally present something, it is unremarkable, as members will see later in my speech.

For years, the Communist dictatorship of Beijing has been taking advantage of Canadians, of our weak acquisition laws, Canadian industry and our proprietary technology. Why is that? Part of it seems to be the bizarre fascination that the Prime Minister has with China. We all remember his comment about admiring Beijing's basic dictatorship, though at the time few thought he was naive enough to believe that and throw open the doors to Beijing, but it turns out that he actually has that fascination.

When the former environment minister visited China in 2018, she too gushed over China's leadership on climate change and its ability to “scale like no other country”. In her address to Boston's Northeastern University this past May, the Deputy Prime Minister “said the fundamental question of our time is: 'Does capitalist democracy still work?'” I think it would be better if the minister were here working for Canadians, but that is what she said.

She stated:

That is the question being posed around kitchen tables, in my country and this one, as parents wonder if our children can count on capitalist democracy’s essential promise of a future more prosperous than our present.

These comments, of course, raise the spectre of what she considers a viable alternative. That would be China's basic dictatorship perhaps. To read between the lines, her thought process seems to be that Canada's current economic woes are not the result of her government's incompetent management, but rather the fault of capitalism and democracy.

As one journalist recently noted, if we are talking about what passes for capitalism and democracy in Justin Trudeau's Canada, not unlike those of China, where capitalism has come to be characterized by close—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is sometimes what happens when members are just reading speeches that are given to them that are written by staffers who perhaps do not know the rules of the House, but the member just said the Prime Minister's name in the context of it being “the [Prime Minister]'s Canada”.

Perhaps the member should inform those who are writing his speeches how the rules of the House work so that this does not happen again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the hon. member cannot prove for sure who has written the speech.

The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister's name. I would ask him to please be careful and ensure that he is not mentioning the name of parliamentarians who sit in the House. I know that does slip from time to time and I think it is done on both sides of the House.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you ask the member for Kingston and the Islands to withdraw his comment.

I know it is the practice on one side of the House to just read canned speeches, but I know this member, and I know he wrote that speech. I know he writes all his speeches, just as most of our members do.

I would ask the Speaker to kindly ask him to withdraw that comment, which was meant to put down one of my colleagues on this side of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have indicated that hon. members should be careful with what they put in their speeches, and they should also be careful when saying whether somebody has done something or has not done something.

I am not sure if the hon. deputy government House leader would like to rise to apologize for that. I understand he is not willing to do so.

I would ask all members to please be careful as it causes disorder in the House, which is not the way we want to function here.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, to carry on, in a so-called capitalist system where the Prime Minister picks the winners and the losers and stacks the deck to ensure a select few friends get rich while everyone else is pushed to become reliant on government for everything from housing to basic income, the general trend, and I believe the endgame of the government, will inevitably collapse.

Likewise, so would a democracy that has been left unprotected and consistently undermined by the actions of the Prime Minister and his friends in Beijing. Beijing had spies, scientists with ties to China's bioweapons program, in our National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, which is one of our most secure facilities. Now, they are nowhere to be found.

The Prime Minister took the former Speaker of the House, the person who sat in Madam Speaker's chair, to court and sued that person to prevent the truth about what was happening at the Winnipeg National Microbiology Lab with those Chinese spies from coming out.

There is hacking and espionage against Canadian infrastructure, academia and industry. The list goes on and on. It is always China. What has the government done so far? In eight years, what has the Liberal government done? It has done nothing up until today, unless of course we include cash for access with Chinese billionaires and donations to the Trudeau Foundation.

However, now the Liberals have a plan, which is Bill C-34. What is the solution government members have put forward? Are they proposing to ban Communist Chinese acquisitions of Canadian companies or to take China to the World Trade Organization? Would they expel Beijing-run spies and state police from Canada? No, they would not. Their solution is more government, more bureaucracy and specifically for more power concentrated in the minister. This would not be the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of National Defence, but with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. It is bizarre. One cannot make this stuff up.

In almost case with the government, it is the same minister who created the problem tasked with fixing the problem. In this case, we have the minister of industry, who I actually like. I wish him all the best in his leadership bid. In 2017, before his time, the minister of industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of B.C.-based Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by Hytera Communications, which is owned by the People's Republic of China.

Then, in December of 2022, under the former public safety minister, the RCMP awarded a contract to supply sensitive hardware for its communication systems to Sinclair Technologies, which was then owned by a Beijing company and major supporter to China's public security ministry. Then it was revealed, also in December of 2022, that since 2017, the CBSA had also been using communications equipment and technology from Hytera Communications.

Hytera has been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States and has been banned by President Biden from doing business in the U.S., but it has not been banned here in Canada, not under the Liberal government. How did the minister respond to these acquisitions? He thought it was cool.

Let us look at another example. In March 2021, the minister updated and enhanced guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises, but in January 2022, he failed to follow his own guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of Canadian lithium company Neo Lithium Corp by, once again, Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining Group, without a national security review taking place.

Then, in November of 2022, the minister ordered three Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three critical mineral firms, but guess who he forgot to mention? It was Neo Lithium. The list goes on.

I am not sure what is more astounding: that it is always China with the Liberal government or that the minister can put forward this legislation with a straight face. How can he expect the House or Canadians to trust him to solve this problem when his own lack of oversight has been so instrumental in creating the problem?

As I wrap up, I will say that the member for Kingston and the Islands always asks whether there is nothing positive in the legislation, and if we cannot say one positive thing. Even he needs reassurance that the Liberals are not completely dropping the ball.

Therefore, I am happy to inform him and his—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up. We will come to questions and comments in a moment, and he will be able to add his additional comments during that time.

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Public Safety; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Nunavut, Indigenous Affairs.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was interesting to listen to. There was some real revisionist history there. The member opposite referenced political relationships with dictators, and I am going to pick up on that.

It is no secret that the member for Carleton has hitched his political wagon to former president Trump. We know of former president Trump's relationship with Putin and his affinity for the government in Russia, and we know that the member for Carleton has been eerily silent on his support for Ukraine.

Is that an indication of his lack of support? Can we chalk up the member's silence on his support for Ukraine to his relationship with former president Trump and, by extension, his relationship with Putin? Can the member explain that and connect the dots for us when it comes to relationships with dictators?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member asked a good question.

I ask why we continue to allow Chinese state-owned companies to invest in Canada when even President Biden, who we often consider as being at the far left or the extreme left, has banned Chinese state-owned companies from operating technology in the United States. The question really is why, here in Canada, are we not seeing the same thing?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji. I can see some work has been done on this legislation and that there were amendments made at committee. I see an amendment to clause 7 regarding the review of proposed investments to be made by a foreign entity, and I see that this review would only happen as long as the minister had recommended it to the Governor in Council.

I wonder if the member agrees and if he could share with us whether he thinks this process is sufficient, given the great concerns he shared regarding reviews.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's honest, thorough, well-thought-out question.

This is something I raised in my speech, which is whether the responsibility for conducting the necessary reviews regarding protecting the integrity of our country from foreign influence and outside investment that would not promote the safety and security of Canadians should not be held by cabinet or, in other words, Governor in Council. It absolutely should be, but it only would if it were to get referenced there by the minister.

That is why, through this bill, a lot of the power would be shuffled over into the seat of one individual, whoever the minister of industry, science and trade would be. The member appropriately identified an area of concern here, which is that this should be a Governor in Council decision and not just a ministerial decision.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague if he had anything he wanted to finish up with at the end of his speech. I am pretty sure my colleague would agree with me that, regardless of who the U.S. president is, Canada is in a much better trading relationship to have them as any ally with what is happening in China right now.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris does a tremendous job for his constituents in the western part of the province of Manitoba. They are very well represented. He operates with a lot of integrity and gives a lot of insight into all the issues being considered by the House. I want to commend him for the good work he is doing here.

In so far as answering the question goes, I will talk a little more about the negative impacts the carbon tax has had. It affects investment here in Canada, because it increases the cost of everything. It is not like GST, which is only applied to the end-user once. The carbon tax is applied to the producer, the transporter, the manufacturer, the transporter again, the distributor, the transporter again and finally the retail outlet, which then serves the consumer, Canadian constituents. Those are the people who pay quadruple in carbon taxes, and it is wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-34, which has been before the House for some time. I must state my great regret that time allocation has been applied to it before any member of the Green Party has been allowed to speak to it.

People know that when someone rises on the government's side and says it has had 20 speakers, 20 witnesses and so on, it sounds exhaustive. However, the rules in this place are intended to allow a proper debate of every bill that involves all members with an interest in it. Members will know that I have long decried, as mentioned earlier in this debate, the use of written speeches. This allows more members to speak to a bill who have a strong interest or background in the subject matter.

I think in this case we have the reverse. We have a really important piece of legislation that got all the way through second reading without any speakers from my party, and then it got into committee, where we are not allowed to be members. Then amendments were made, and here we are at report stage already and I have a lot of concerns. Without further pause to reflect on my regret that this is the first time I have been given a speaking opportunity in this place, let me speak to the Investment Canada Act and to the revisions that are made in Bill C-34.

It is very important that we, in 2023, take a new lens and look at what we mean by foreign investments of concern and what that means for national security and national sovereignty. I am concerned that the bill leaves cabinet decision-making more as a discretionary matter and that there will not have to be a cabinet decision unless there is a recommendation from the minister.

Triggering a foreign investment review has never been easy in this country. Let me just reflect for a moment on two specific cases. I think one will be better with the changes made under Bill C-34, but I hate to say that, even at this late hour, I am not certain this bill would improve the situation on a more complicated matter.

Let me speak to the first one. It was a few years ago that a takeover was proposed for one of Canada's largest engineering firms, Aecon. It had gone quite far. It was reported in the business pages that Aecon was to be purchased, after being approved by Aecon shareholders, by a People's Republic of China company, CCCI. It was moving along without concern.

It was in 2018 that I was the first member of Parliament to raise on the floor of the House of Commons a concern: Did we not need a national security review before one of the largest engineering companies in Canada became the property of a company based in the People's Republic of China? It has been a particular concern of mine for some time because, back in the Harper years, a decision was taken by cabinet alone with no vote. I want to repeat that for new members of Parliament, as it will be shocking to them. We never had a vote in the House of Commons on the approval of the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, otherwise known as a FIPA, between the People's Republic of China and Canada.

It gives corporations and state-owned enterprises from within the People's Republic of China superior rights, if they are a Canadian company, to complain of changes made by regulation, complain of court decisions or complain of any number of matters where a corporation feels that its expectation of profits has been somehow reduced. This originally emerged as an investor-state provision in chapter 11 of NAFTA back in the day when it was NAFTA. Ironically, this investor-state provision has been removed from CUSMA, but it has been transplanted into bilateral trade agreements. However, they are not even trade agreements, as in the case of the FIPA with China. There is no trade deal between the People's Republic of China and Canada. Thanks to former prime minister Stephen Harper, there are investment protections for corporations from the People's Republic of China that Canadian corporations cannot access.

Even worse, the FIPA with China keeps any complaints from the People's Republic of China or its state-owned enterprises completely secret. The complaint process is secret. We would only find out about it if it went to the end, to an arbitration. That would be reported.

I do not have enough time in the time I have to speak to Bill C-34 to fully explain why we must have a very different lens when looking at the takeover of Canadian enterprises by any foreign entity. If that foreign entity has the benefit of an investor protection agreement that gives a corporation superior rights to a domestic Canadian corporation, it is very concerning.

I think I had to raise it two or three times in the House before a few other MPs began to say that they were also concerned about Aecon, and in the end, the minister triggered a foreign national security review. It was turned down. The decision was made by the Government of Canada, I think appropriately, to stop the takeover of Aecon by a corporation in the People's Republic of China.

More complicated and recent is the takeover of virtually all of Canada's pulp and paper production by a corporation owned by one man. It is not a limited corporation. It does not appear on the stock exchanges of any country. The name of this corporation is Paper Excellence. It is owned by one human being, one sole person who is a billionaire from Indonesia.

Some of the media coverage, which thank goodness has been intensive, is quite belated. Basically, Paper Excellence had already bought up Domtar, already bought up Catalyst Paper and already bought up Resolute, and after purchasing Northern Pulp of Pictou, Nova Scotia, suddenly Paper Excellence, which has a registered headquarters in Vancouver but is no more Canadian than the Indonesian billionaire who owns it, has bought up virtually all of the pulp and paper processing across Canada.

This is alarming. Is it a national security threat? The question was never asked. No one really saw it coming. It was only seen through the media investigations subsequent to this Indonesian billionaire-owned enterprise called Paper Excellence becoming the owner of all the pulp and paper mills.

The acquisition of Resolute Forest Products had a major impact in Quebec. Many people, including members of the Bloc Québécois, are very concerned since Resolute is an important player in Quebec's pulp and paper industry.

It is also very important in British Columbia, where Catalyst Paper is based. The mill in Crofton and the mill in Powell River were purchased initially from Catalyst Paper and suddenly became owned by a very mysterious Indonesian billionaire. Should this have had a review? Media coverage has managed to unearth that the buying spree of Paper Excellence was likely, although we do not know for sure, financed by loans from the state investment bank of the People's Republic of China.

Do Paper Excellence mills have access to the FIPA with China to complain if we make changes in any way, like provincial changes in Quebec or British Columbia, where these mills are based? They would have access to the FIPA if they can make the case that they are operations of the People's Republic of China. We do not know if this investment is from the People's Republic of China.

Even with the changes made in Bill C-34, I am not reassured that we would have caught what was going on with Paper Excellence. Would we have had an opportunity to have a foreign investment review before this single Indonesian billionaire began buying up all our pulp and paper mills? I wish I had had an opportunity at committee. I wish I had had an opportunity to be in debate at second reading. I know the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay raised some of these issues at the time. He is also concerned about Paper Excellence.

With the time remaining, I will say I think it is unfortunate that we have time allocation now and these issues are rushed. It is unfortunate that we will not adequately debate the amendments that have come forward at report stage, such as the ones I have heard mentioned by the member for South Shore—St. Margarets. I close here and hope we have not missed too much.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly always enjoy listening to the comments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

She must admit, though, that she is aware of the fact that there are a lot of procedural games that go on in the House, which puts the government in a position that, in order to be able to do anything, unfortunately, the reality is that time allocation has to be brought in on certain bills. I think of the Canadian free trade agreement with Ukraine. Every time the bill is scheduled to come up, Conservatives put forward a concurrence motion that is preventing us from being able to let it. If we left it to the Conservatives to always dictate, and I know that Conservatives are heckling me right now and we are not even discussing that bill, we would never even get to the opportunity to pass that very important piece of legislation for Ukraine.

I am wondering whether she could at least acknowledge the fact that she understands the position we are in and that we have to do this from time to time.

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

Madam Speaker, of course, I empathize, but I cannot understand.

I do not like our rules' being abused constantly to bring in forced closure on debate to speed things along. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will know that I think the solution lies in applying all of our rules. It is against our rules in this place, as it is against the rules of the Parliament of Westminster in the U.K., to read a written speech. If we did not have written speeches handed out to members, we would have fewer speeches about every bill, because fewer members of Parliament would be prepared to speak from rough notes without somebody else putting the words in their mouth. That would speed things up. I understand and I empathize, but I plead with the government not to keep doing this, because too many members are going to assume that this is the way it is done.

No matter who is sitting in the Prime Minister's chair, we continue to see democracy eroded in Parliament.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Due to multiple technical issues, I was unable to vote in the vote that took place after question period. I would like to seek unanimous consent to have my vote counted as yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I see that amendments were made to the ICA by the committee. An amendment was made to clause 19, which would expand transparency and disclosure by the minister regarding reviews and orders that are issued. The minister would be required to report on those reviews.

I wonder whether the member could share her thoughts on whether this is sufficient to make sure that her concerns are being addressed.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think so. The difficulty is that, yes, there would be improved transparency once one has a review, but what would trigger a review in an issue like that of Paper Excellence, which I have referenced? How wide is the net cast, and when could we take concerns forward?

I wish we had more time. I will vote for Bill C-34; let me make that clear. It is an improvement and would modernize the Investment Canada Act. I think I would like to also vote for one of the Conservative amendments, to ensure that cabinet would retain control in the reviews. In any case, I will vote for it, but I am very concerned, because the innovative ways in which Canadian corporations are taken over by foreign interests do not trigger the usual notion of national security but can be very significant for national sovereignty. That is my concern.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question on a point she just made with regard to cabinet's having authority over the movement of this type of development in our trade security systems. Can she elaborate on her thoughts regarding why that is so important?

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

Madam Speaker, it is not to denigrate any individual minister, but the reality is that ministers would have pressures on them that might be regional. They might be specific to the concerns that are shared within the region they represent or the sector that has their ear most frequently. On a matter of turning down the purchase of a Canadian corporation by a foreign interest, it is traditionally a cabinet-level decision, and I think it should remain that way.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that from time to time there are technical difficulties when voting, and we seem to have established a practice of allowing members to register their votes. I note that the last request came a significant amount of time after the fact, but I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to allow the member for Fundy Royal to cast his vote in favour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House, as always, and add my voice to the debate we are having here about Bill C-34. When we say “Bill C-34”, most Canadians who are watching or hearing the debate here would know exactly what that means.

I would remind members that today, we have heard several points of order from members on the Liberal side of the aisle who do not like the topics we are covering regarding this legislation. However, Bill C-34 is an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, modernizing ways in which the federal government could attract more investment in this country. This line is very important, because it was the Prime Minister who instructed the industry minister to “Contribute to broader efforts to promote economic security and combat foreign interference by reviewing and modernizing the Investment Canada Act”.

I am going to take the time I have on the floor here today, and hopefully not get “point of ordered” too many times from the other side, to say this: Actions speak a lot louder than words. What we have, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, is an economic situation in this country that is not very good. After the vote today, for example, a big contributor to the frustration of millions of Canadians is the punitive and damaging carbon tax that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are imposing on this country. The carbon tax is bad for our economy, for business, for investment and for Canadian households.

In talking about investing in Canada and competition from other countries around the world, the example I am going to cite is one that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, has raised from our neck of the woods in eastern Ontario.

We talk about the government's economic record, its actions and not just its words in a mundane piece of legislation. The Liberals are continuing to endorse the carbon tax, and they voted today against taking the carbon tax off all forms of home heating for all Canadians. If that is not out of touch, then the way we have greenhouses taxed, and the lack of competition, or frankly, taxing them out of business in this country in too many cases, is a perfect example of how the Liberals' policies are failing.

I think of SunTech Greenhouses in Manotick, in Carleton County just north of my riding in eastern Ontario. For years, it has been struggling to compete. It is based in Manotick, here in eastern Ontario, and it is struggling to compete on cost with tomatoes that come from as far away as Mexico, or even farther south than that. Why is that? It is because the greenhouse in eastern Ontario is being nailed with the carbon tax. The irony of all that is the fact that the CO2 it creates does not go into the atmosphere; it goes into the greenhouses and into the plants that are being grown here locally. It is local food, a local economy and local investment, yet it is getting nailed with the carbon tax, which is the height of irony. It is struggling to compete with tomatoes shipped from Mexico, coming up on a ship and then by truck, and those countries are paying no carbon tax whatsoever.

What we are seeing is our potential in agriculture in this country being hurt badly. We are seeing farmers being taxed for growing food, truckers being taxed to ship the food and grocers being taxed to sell the food. It is adding to a competition problem in this country, and it is adding to, not taking away from, the cost of living crisis in every single part of this country.

I think about two areas I have had the opportunity to visit in recent months. Let's say someone runs a business in northern Ontario and is trying to compete for investment into Canada and actually taking the investments here and maybe exporting around the world. Timmins is hundreds of kilometres away from southern Ontario and the United States, our largest trading partner.

Let us just think about it for a second. There are zero rebates for businesses in Timmins when it comes to these carbon taxes that they are being nailed with. This is only just beginning. They are going to be quadrupling in the coming years. If they are trying to compete with a business in, say, Michigan or even the other way around, if a business in Michigan is competing with somebody at the soup and salad bowl, Simcoe County in Ontario, if a business is trying to take the 600 or 700 kilometres up to Timmins to provide groceries and fresh food, they are being nailed with the carbon tax on the Canadian side.

One of the things I think is really important in this debate is what I will say again: actions speak louder than words. We have a modernization effort here in this bill, long past due. We have tried to add to and strengthen the bill in many ways with no success from the Liberal government.

We talk about priorities and we talk about legislation coming forward. There are so many ways to combat the problems we are facing. Axing the carbon tax is a very high priority for a growing number of Canadians. It is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan and it is punitive to competition and to investment in Canada, as we can see by recent stagnant numbers, which we are continuing to see in economic indicators on inflation, on housing and on our growth as an economy. We are going in the wrong direction.

The other half I want to highlight is when we talk about efforts to combat foreign interference, we will not look at the words. We will look at the actions of the Liberal government the past couple of years.

We have seen multiple efforts by the Prime Minister and the NDP and Liberals voting together multiple times to ignore, brush aside or try to sweep under the carpet the seriousness and magnitude of foreign interference in our country. In response to the bombshell allegations that were leaked by journalists and courageous whistle-blowers who had to come forward to give the information, we found out that there were numerous members of Parliament who were under surveillance, under threat. It was not until these leaked reports and these whistle-blowers came forward and they were published on the front pages of The Globe and Mail and other national publications that the government finally attempted to address the issue.

Look at the Rosenberg report by Morris Rosenberg after the 2021 election. That was an absolute whitewash attempt to cover up the severity and the depths to which the Communist Party in China attempted to interfere in our democratic process. They did not even bother to interview members of the official opposition from the Conservative Party on their experiences and evidence of serious wrongdoing in the 2021 election. They said that report would be good enough and tried to move on.

Second, whenever further allegations came and they were under further pressure, their actions spoke louder than their words. They appointed a special rapporteur. Most people had to google what rapporteur even meant. For months they went on a charade in a process that resulted in the resignation of David Johnston after he lost a lot of credibility—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear the heckling.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. members are not heckling. I think they are having conversations. I would ask them to have those conversations outside. They have to realize that their voices carry in this House.

The hon. member has one minute to finish up.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be uncomfortable if I were the Liberals too, called out for their failed record on combatting foreign interference.

We had a resignation from David Johnston. We had 24 hours of filibustering at a committee because Liberals did not want the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify. Let us not forget the Winnipeg lab documents where the House of Commons ordered the production of those documents, but the Prime Minister and Liberal government took the Speaker of the House of Commons to court in an attempt to cover up information that Canadians deserved to know.

As we talk about issues of combatting foreign interference, if we talk about issues of strengthening investment in Canada, there are many failings after eight years of the Prime Minister and NDP government that leave a lot to be desired. Bill C-34 is just scratching at the surface of what truly needs to be done.

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

Madam Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but I heard the member say that he was the government that pushed David Johnston into a position of excusing himself from his responsibilities. If I remember correctly, and maybe the member can remind me, did the member and the Conservative Party not continuously call for that resignation? Am I forgetting something?

I am pretty sure the pressure was primarily coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I am calling out is the Liberals' continued failed attempts to get to the bottom of foreign interference in this country. They appointed a rapporteur who had many conflicts of interest. They created more questions than answers around the process. They set up a process to try to cover up the truth. They did not want a public inquiry and they did everything they possibly could to avoid it.

The Liberals set up the Rosenberg report, they set up the rapporteur and they avoided, like the plague, a public inquiry. It was only pressure from Conservatives that they finally caved and got a public inquiry going in this country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to ask a question that has to do with the bill before us.

There are two things that must be assessed when it comes to foreign investments. First, we must determine whether there is a net benefit for the Canadian economy. Second, we must take into account any national security considerations, which the member spoke a lot about.

Since this is the digital age, many countries are saying that digital infrastructure should be considered critical infrastructure and that it sometimes needs protecting from potentially hostile foreign investments. Does the member agree with me that the telecommunications sector should be considered critical and strategic infrastructure here in Canada?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will echo what many of my colleagues on this side have raised. Members who are on the industry committee will know, when this bill was at committee and amendments were being considered, we put forward 14 different amendments to try to add a more rigorous review process of acquisitions and investments from foreign-state enterprises entering Canada. Just to understand how seriously the Liberals take this issue, of the 14 amendments that would strengthen the process even further, only four of them passed.

I would say to the member from the NDP who voted for time allocation and voted for all this to proceed that they are going along with the Liberals and only passing, for example, four of 14 amendments that would further strengthen the bill.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to elaborate a bit more on the topic he was just speaking of.

I would also ask him, because this is on national review, to talk about the kinds of supports needed by our industry in continuing to grow our export volumes in just about all the products we have.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, a lot of time with legislation, what happens is that the details, what the government is going to be doing through regulation afterward and the process will be very key. I know of many incidents and examples, by colleagues at committee, of trying to understand what protocol, processes and resources would be provided for this year. There needs to be a time frame for review for when a decision will be made, and making it as clear and as quick as possible in order to continue with investments that are worthwhile and are not of a national security concern or threat. We need to address those in an expedited or reasonable time frame.

There were not a lot of assurances from the other side of the number of employees, the number of regulations, the time frame and the processes. Again, we are going to have to wait and see the actions of the government in the coming years. If it is based on other pieces of legislation, we do not need a ton more bureaucracy and cost to the taxpayer.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. Bill C-34 attempts 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. Why does the government feel we need this bill? Here is a little background and some timelines.

In the Prime Minister's December 2021 mandate letter to the industry minister, he asked the minister to:

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 economic security threats from foreign investment.

In essence, this bill would give the industry minister 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 penalties more severe for violating the Investment Canada Act.

Why, again, is this bill needed? Well, 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 China-based Hytera Communications, which is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. In 2020, the Department of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to China-based Nuctech, founded by the son of a former Chinese Communist Party secretary general, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 of Canada's embassies and consulates.

In response to some of these failures, in March 2021, the industry minister updated and enhanced guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises. However, in January 2022, the same minister failed to follow his own guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of Canadian lithium company Neo Lithium Corp. by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining without a national security review. In November 2022, the minister then ordered three Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three critical mineral firms, but not included was the previously approved acquisition of Neo Lithium. One cannot make this stuff up.

In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract to supply sensitive hardware for its communications system to Sinclair Technologies, formerly a Canadian-owned company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International. Norsat, founded and based in Richmond, B.C., itself was acquired by Hytera Communications. Hytera, headquartered in Shenzhen, China, is partially owned by the People's Republic of China and is a major supplier to China's public security ministry. It was also revealed in December 2022 that in 2017 the Canada Border Services Agency had been using communications equipment and technology from Hytera Communications, which worked with Canadian company Canquest Communications to supply the Hytera equipment.

Hytera has been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the U.S. and banned by President Biden from doing business in the U.S. When and if this bill passes, the government would need to come forward with regulations to identify the prescribed business sectors in which enhanced review processes would take place. These sensitive business sectors would be decided upon through regulation. However, it is expected these sectors would feature aerospace, defence, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, energy generation and medical technology.

After eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property and intangible assets, and the data of our citizens. The government is doing little, too late to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill. Liberals do not take sensitive transactions seriously and have failed to fully review transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises, putting the security and material interests of Canadians and the government at risk while Conservatives have continually pressed the government to ensure that appropriate national security reviews are conducted on Chinese state enterprises. While we do agree with the general principle of this bill, we have also flagged issues in which this bill does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians.

That is why at committee, Conservatives found opportunities to strengthen this bill. We actually found 14 opportunities. We put forward 14 amendments aimed at providing a far more rigorous review process of acquisitions and investments involving foreign state-owned enterprises. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal government rejected 10 notable Conservative improvements to this legislation, but we still managed to fight hard to get four amendments passed.

The four Conservative amendments that passed accomplished some changes. We reduced the threshold to trigger a national security review for all state-owned enterprises from $512 million in asset value to zero and, for countries not listed as trade agreement investors, we ensured all investments made by state-owned enterprises would be reviewable. We also implemented a requirement for the minister to review any investments or acquisitions made in Canada that exceed $1.9 billion in enterprise value instead of being an option.

These changes would be positive for Canadian industry, Canadian workers and our national interest, but Conservatives still see room for improvement in this bill. We will continue to work to improve Bill C-34 even further by working to delete clause 15, which would remove the mandatory consultations with cabinet in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security. This change would be problematic, given the number of state-owned enterprises made in Canada over the past eight years that have not undergone a security review as a result of decisions made by past industry ministers.

By removing cabinet from the process, decisions over whether an investment is considered injurious would receive less debate and scrutiny. By removing clause 15 from the bill, the language would revert to the act's current text, thus making all security review decisions reviewable by cabinet and not just by the ministers of industry and public safety.

After eight years of the Liberal government, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens, all under their watch. More needs to be done to protect Canadian interests and Conservatives will continue to work hard to achieve this.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, in a now notorious case, Chinese insurance agent Anbang took over B.C.-based Retirement Concepts, which was a Canadian-owned company that operated senior living facilities. At that time, Anbang was a privately owned corporation. This takeover was approved under the current rules, and almost immediately, we saw problems in seniors homes in British Columbia, including declining quality standards, seniors' needs not being taken care of and a general decline in the care of our seniors.

It seems the current laws did not work in that case, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any suggestions on how we could strengthen Canadian laws to make sure that this kind of situation does not happen again, particularly when it has such devastating impacts on people as vulnerable as Canada's seniors.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the whole committee process of reviewing the bill, and this is why we are debating it at report stage, my Conservative colleagues on the committee proposed 14 amendments to improve this legislation, to improve the security and scrutiny that takes place with foreign-controlled enterprises that are looking to take over Canadian companies and the impact it has on workers in this country. Unfortunately, only four of those amendments passed.

Conservatives are looking to create situations where we can improve this legislation. We are hopeful that we can get additional changes made, including the removal of clause 15 to ensure mandatory consultations with cabinet in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security.

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

Madam Speaker, at the committee stage of this bill, the Conservatives introduced an amendment that would have required any major investment from a state-owned enterprise outside the Five Eyes to be considered a national security risk. My riding and a few other Quebec ridings are home to the aerospace industry. An investment from Airbus, a French-German state-owned enterprise, would have been automatically considered a threat to national security. That amendment could have posed a serious threat to major investments in Quebec, major investments in the aerospace industry and major investments in my riding.

I would like to know whether my colleague still agrees that such investments, in my riding and in our aerospace sector, should be automatically considered a threat to national security.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the amendment we proposed at committee would have allowed for a takeover by any foreign hostile country to be reviewed immediately. That would have been looked at.

It is again the whole notion of removing the mandatory cabinet review on national security issues. Does the member not feel that those members from the Quebec caucus who are members of cabinet should not have the right to review such sensitive information and sensitive matters when those decisions are being made in Canada?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I get into my question, I would like to recognize the life of Eugene Dery, who passed away, leaving behind his wife, Kim Galloway and their son, Dax.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about time allocation being moved despite us having a lot of unresolved issues with this bill. Does the member care to comment on the minister saying that we are all ad idem, when clearly, we are not?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's comments. On this side of the House, we are disappointed in the government for bringing forward time allocation.

There are chances to improve this legislation. We put 14 amendments forward, and only four were accepted. We still have concerns that we would like addressed to ensure that this bill is better, better for all Canadians. That should be the priority of everyone in the House.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to address the House today on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

There are some positive advancements in this bill. Notably, there is the move to give the minister more time and authority to assess foreign transactions that might compromise national security. These are important considerations in an increasingly less secure world where foreign actors are using several means, through asset acquisition, technology transfers and theft, to advance their economic interests, often to the detriment of others, including trade partners and allies. It is important that Canada represents itself well in this regard, and does not always arrive as the only boy scout at the negotiating table.

I will keep the rest of my comments today to the parts of this bill which, at this stage, seem to overlook key principles on which we, the people of Canada, govern ourselves, and to how some of the proposed amendments would affect business in the manner it transpires in an interconnected world, which is becoming more and more scarce of resources.

In March 2021, the current Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and let us say the industry minister going forward, updated and enhanced guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises. They were just words on paper it seems because in January 2022, the same minister failed to follow these guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of Neo Lithium mining by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining without a national security review.

It is an important illustrative case. Neo Lithium was a Canadian-listed company with assets in Argentina. None of the assets were in Canada, but in a country whose critical mineral assets were far from any supply chain that might emerge in Canada. Why was Neo Lithium a Canadian company? It is because it is registered in Canada and is listed for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange, notably, the world's foremost exchange for listing mining properties in every jurisdiction.

About 43% of the world's publicly listed mining companies are hosted on Canadian exchanges, with an estimated market capitalization of over $560 billion. An understanding of this strength is critical to grasp what Canada and Canadians bring to the world wide mining landscape.

National instrument 43-101 is a Canadian regulatory reporting instrument that provides clarity on a company's resource plays and is world-renowned. This instrument is one of the ways in which our resource industry and our financial markets have become internationally renowned as being best in class. Investors around the world count on our standards to understand the prospects of mineralization in resource opportunities. This is an international advantage that we would let go of at our peril. Negligence of this understanding is not an excuse for decades of hard-won international repute.

Co-existent with this regulatory standard is pricing. No international miner is going to list their prospect in a jurisdiction where they cannot raise funds to advance their project. Gaining so-called liquidity on these markets means that there is an active and broad array of buyers and sellers following the industry.

Funds are raised for mineral developments of all types, including critical minerals, at what is called a “multiple”. For simplicity, let us use the price-to-earnings multiple in Canada, which is currently around 13.8 times. Concurrently, broad market multiples in the U.S. are 22 times. Comparing apples to apples, the market in the U.S. values their companies at a rate about 60% higher than in Canada.

There is more to consider in that analysis, as that is frankly too simplistic, and the resource industry has more sway in the Canadian market, so its discount is more like 15% to its U.S. counterparts, but we have more small and micro exploration companies. Any entrance of political interference in this very transparent process will move investment funds, prospects, jobs and money from Canadian oversight to foreign oversight. The loss to our economy and our reputation will be significant. Let us ensure we have these considerations in mind as we develop policies that are meant to restrict foreign investment in Canadian-listed companies with foreign assets.

As an example, Australia is Canada's main competition for listing mining properties. Its disclosure regime is not considered as robust as Canada's, so we win on the basis of reputation.

Fifty per cent of the world's lithium supply currently comes from mines in Australia. Ninety per cent of the lithium extracted in Australia ends up in China. That is what is meant by a “critical mineral supply chain”, at which China has performed so adeptly. In order to develop Canadian mines for the world's growing critical mineral needs, we will need the invested funds from around the world for development and financing at a multiple where it makes sense here as much as it does elsewhere, particularly in regimes with much lower regulatory oversight.

In the case of Neo Lithium, the industry minister approved the takeover, ignoring his own guidelines. Because no one could find the rationale, transparently, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertook a study specifically on the acquisition. The committee received significant input and made three recommendations, the most important of which is “That the government create a formalized and transparent process” for these reviews. Members will note from my previous analysis that I do not disagree with the outcome at which the minister arrived. However, I am dismayed that it arose in direct contravention to his previously stated guidelines.

Canadian companies working in exploration and development opportunities globally need to continue to lead their peers in developing the minerals the world needs more of going forward. I agree with the committee that there should be a transparent process, and it seems that the minister and his department are only learning the inputs to these decisions on the fly. If they need help, there is an excess of industry expertise in Canada that can advise outside the halls of the industry department, and the minister should not be averse to seeking this input.

Now, I contrast the minister's decision on Neo Lithium with his decision this past November, where he ordered the divestment of Chinese state-controlled shareholdings in three Canadian-listed mining companies: Ultra Lithium, which has five mineral prospects, two of which are in Canada, two in Argentina and one in Nevada; Lithium Chile, which has three mineral prospects in Chile; and Power Metals Corp, which has three Canadian exploration properties. I cannot find the consistencies. Arguably, Lithium Chile should be treated in the same manner as the minister treated Neo Lithium. However, something changed, or something is not transparent, as the committee recommended it should be.

There are dozens of Canadian-listed mining companies with foreign investors, including in critical minerals, that were not addressed by the minister. At the same time, here in Canada, our only producing lithium mine is the Tanco mine in Manitoba. Tanco was taken over by Sinomine Resource Group, a Chinese state-controlled company, in June 2019. Notably, all the minerals it extracts are exported directly to China, which is a unique approach to our strategic supply chain in critical minerals. To add confusion to the mix, Sinomine was also the shareholder of Power Metals, which the minister ordered to divest its shares in the previous example I gave. It is a twisted plot with no apparent consistency.

This brings me to a significant concern with the proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act in the bill. The legislation proposes to remove Governor in Council oversight from the process of assessing foreign transactions for national security consideration. This would effectively dilute the government's role and place it directly in the hands of one minister. Let me remind members that this very minister has already acted with absolute inconsistency on this file, in direct contravention of his own guidelines. Now this amendment seeks to move this decision further from the transparent process that the industry committee recommended; he has stated that he agrees with the recommendation, yet he is not acting that way.

I say that words and actions need to align. Unfortunately, with the bill before us, as with so many of the government's initiatives, they do not.

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

Madam Speaker, I am tempted to remind my friend of the incredibly dismal record of the Harper regime. Over nine years, we repeatedly saw the sellout of important companies: Nexen to CNOOC and Progress to Petronas. We also had the disastrous signing of the Canada-China FIPA, which is one of the reasons why Bill C-34 is so important. This was over a 30-year period, so the Harper government did not sell out Canada just for the period when it was in office, but also for more than three decades.

Diane Francis with the Financial Post, who is certainly not a left-winger, said that the Conservatives:

have demonstrated the worst negotiating skills since Neville Chamberlain....

The terms agreed to by Ottawa [and the Harper government] are unprecedented and would be laughed out of Britain, Brussels, Canberra or Washington. Beijing has negotiated a heads-I-win-tails-Canada-loses deal.

This is the kind of situation that has to be addressed by Bill C-34. We know that the Conservatives have been blocking the passage of the bill, even though they say they support it. Is it not important that we fix the mistakes of the Harper regime, and can the member apologize on behalf of Conservatives for their sellout of Canada?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused. My colleague spoke about many issues.

There are some excellent foreign investors that came into Canada in the previous regime, but that is over eight years ago now. We are looking at a lot here. My colleague advanced 14 amendments, some of which were supported by the member's party at committee and some of which were not, in order to strengthen the bill. The bill needs to be strengthened to make sure we do not have a puppet democracy, where one person would decide what goes forward. I do not know why my colleague is so averse to making a bill stronger in relation to how it would be perceived and practised in every other democratic country in the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Calgary Centre has done a lot of good work in the area of mergers and acquisitions throughout his career. I would like him to comment on what we are actually debating today that some members in the NDP-Liberal coalition do not seem to want to talk about, which is the removal, in the bill, of cabinet from the decision-making process.

Given that my colleague has sat at C-suite tables and board tables, and I know he understands how cabinet works, does he not think decision-making processes in the area of foreign takeovers would be much enhanced by the collective decision-making of a management team, a board or a cabinet as opposed to letting one lone minister make the decisions?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the crux of what Conservatives see as being wrong with the bill. It has been led by our industry critic, who just spoke. That is what we need to change more than anything else in the bill: to make sure collective decision-making is happening at the cabinet table. We cannot have one person from one region of Canada deciding what happens to a company that might exist in another province of Canada, without input from people at the cabinet table who might have differing perspectives on it as far as how it affects the country, whether in finance, transport or defence. All of these things have to be taken together in collective decision-making.

That is what we have in Canada right now, and that is what the bill is trying to usurp. This has to change. Conservatives are trying to get that out of the bill, and I thank my colleague for bringing that forward in a very strong amendment. I hope the House considers that amendment very strongly and we can get back to the way democracies function in this regard.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the amendments in committee that was defeated by the Liberals said that any takeover in Canada by a corporation whose headquarters are resident in Beijing would be automatically reviewed. The Liberals voted against that for some reason, perhaps because Beijing's government is most admired by the Prime Minister.

I am wondering whether the member could comment about what would possess Liberals to oppose an amendment that would force an automatic review.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where the government is going on this. It is obvious that for years, we were looking at transparent decisions made with the market. Unfortunately, a lot of acquisitions happen in the market around the world by foreign actors that are state-owned enterprises. Those require oversight because, frankly, state-owned actors have a different way of doing business than businesses—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak on Bill C-34.

Before I do, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the calamitous vote the Liberal members of this House took earlier today by excluding all Canadians from being treated fairly by pausing the carbon tax for Canadians all over the country. I come from Winnipeg, one of the coldest cities on the planet. Today, Liberal members from Winnipeg said no to Winnipeggers, while their Atlantic Canadian counterparts seem to be more effective than they are. They have the ear of the Prime Minister who I suppose was trying to save himself from his terrible polling results with this desperate measure by the government. However, at the end of the day the Liberals chose not to pause the carbon tax pain, which is really unfortunate for all Canadians.

As far as Bill C-34 is concerned, I want to say this. After eight years of the Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interests and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens. The government is doing too little, too late to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill.

Since the Liberals came to power, business investment per employee in Canada has dropped 20%. At the same time, business investment per employee in the United States has increased 14%. Per capita growth is at the lowest level since the Great Depression some 90 years ago and Canada has the most at-risk mortgage default portfolio in the G7. According to the National Bank of Canada, for the first time ever, business investment is now lower in this country than housing investment. When we think about all the manufacturing, oil production and everything else, investment in those things is lower than it is in housing.

The goal of the Investment Canada Act is to deal with foreign investors controlling Canadian industry, trade and commerce. Foreign direct investment creates opportunities, stimulates economic development and introduces new ideas and innovation to Canada. For Canadians, this means more high-quality jobs and a stronger, more sustainable economy.

Billions of dollars of Canadian natural resources, ideas, IP and land are being controlled by foreign entities. Huawei, a state-owned enterprise that feeds intelligence directly to China, was still working with many Canadian universities as of this past summer.

Another example would be taxpayer-funded dollars at Dalhousie University that are funding Tesla intellectual property and research and that IP is all going back to California.

In 2017, the Liberal government allowed a telecom company from British Columbia called Norsat to be acquired by a company called Hytera, which is a Chinese-based state-owned company. Conservatives demanded at that time a full national security review. The Liberal minister of the day refused to do one and approved the acquisition.

This sort of lax attitude toward issues of national security is clearly a problem. After eight years of the Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interests and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens.

The future of Canada needs to be protected in the airwaves, AI and quantum computing. It needs to be protected in our farms, food-processing plants, oceans and fisheries, as well as in developing Canadian LNG, which the world so desperately wants. The government is doing too little to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill. Canadians know the Liberals do not take sensitive transactions seriously and have failed to fully review transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises, putting the security of Canadians and the government at risk.

The minister is the minister of broken bills, which is why Conservatives are having to make more amendments to this piece of legislation. On his other bill, Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, after a year and a half he was forced to make amendments.

The Liberals missed the chance to think big and understand what is going on in the Canadian economy. This bill does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians. That is why Conservatives worked to pass four significant amendments to ensure a rigorous review process—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Conservatives go to great lengths to remind us of the ruling that was made by the Chair recently on what is expected with respect to decorum. In particular, one of the things the Speaker identified in that process was using fake names for people in this House. Therefore, when the member makes comments like the “minister of broken promises”, or whatever he just said, he is clearly violating the rules that you have put in place and I would ask you to ask him—

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

We do not want to repeat what is incorrect.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

Madam Speaker, in the House, I think the Speaker was asked a very similar question and said he has relented on that position.

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

Let us try to be respectful and judicious in our comments.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals missed a chance to think big and understand what is going on in the Canadian economy. This bill does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians.

That is why Conservatives worked to pass four significant amendments. For instance, Conservatives ensured that the threshold to trigger a national security review was reduced so that Canadian resources, including intellectual property, are safer.

Among the changes proposed by the government in the bill is the removal of mandatory consultations with cabinet in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security. This change is problematic given the number of state-owned investments made in Canada over the past eight years that have not undergone a security review because of decisions made by past industry ministers. By removing cabinet from the process, decisions over whether an investment is considered injurious will receive less debate and scrutiny.

These are decisions that should have a national perspective that only cabinet could provide. Foreign investments often have national impacts on our economy and on multiple regions. To leave the discretion in the hands of one minister from one part of the country will negate a broad national perspective. It is a problem that this bill is only as strong as the minister's scrutiny, whoever the 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.

As I mentioned, one Conservative amendment that was approved at committee was about reducing the threshold to trigger a national security review from $512 million to zero dollars for all state-owned enterprise investments made in Canada. Lowering that threshold was critical so that at least it would trigger and initiate a security review.

Another Conservative amendment that was passed would ensure that items reviewable under the national security review process include acquisitions of any assets by a state-owned enterprise. Until now, the review only applied to acquisitions of the controlling shares of an industry. That was a huge loophole, as it opened the door to circumvent a review where a deal was structured as an asset purchase. For example, buying the shares of a mining company could be reviewed but buying the mines themselves could not. This is a welcome change.

Another amendment would ensure that an automatic national security review is conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges. Another change would require the minister to review any investments or acquisitions made in Canada that exceed $1.9 billion in enterprise value instead of it being an option.

Conservatives could have improved this legislation further had the NDP-Liberal government not rejected many notable Conservative improvements to this legislation. Among the common-sense Conservative amendments that failed to pass committee was one that would have modified the definition of “state-owned enterprise” to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state such as China.

Another amendment that was defeated would have exempted non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the national security review process to prevent any overly broad review processes. Another amendment would have ensured that an automatic national security review is conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges. One other amendment would have implemented a requirement for the minister to trigger a national security review automatically whenever the investment review threshold was triggered. The last would have required the minister to conduct a national security review by changing the word “may” to “shall” to ensure a review would be triggered whenever it is in the new threshold.

It is important that we get this right. Recently at the ethics committee, there was a study on foreign interference and the role that nations, particularly China and Russia, are playing as state-owned actors in making investments in our economy for the purpose of control, including controlling Canadian businesses, Canadian minerals, Canadian resources and, in many cases, some of our northern and offshore areas.

Therefore, it becomes critically important for the government to keep a keen eye, and multiple eyes in fact, on what is happening with foreign investment and approvals. We believe that Conservatives have improved the bill dramatically. We are trying to improve it again in the spirit of good public policy for Canada and protecting our economy against hostile interests, which the Liberals seem not to be that interested in.

I urge the House, including all members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the government, to recognize that cabinet's decision-making process is essential to understanding the national impacts of foreign investment. I urge members to vote for our amendment. By removing clause 15 from the bill, all security review decisions would remain reviewable by cabinet and not just by the ministers of industry and public safety. This is all about protecting Canadians and protecting our valuable assets, our businesses, our national security and certainly our interests.

We must take sensitive transactions seriously, and we have failed to fully review some transactions, particularly as they relate to Chinese state-owned enterprises of the past. A Conservative government would not only protect Canadian investment but build Canadian companies and attract investments to grow them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that Parliament significantly reformed the ICA in 2009. That was of course done under a majority Conservative government led by Prime Minister Harper. At that time, a very ill-advised step was taken. The Conservative government raised the thresholds that would trigger a net benefit review of an investment under the act and eliminated most sector-specific requirements, with the notable exception of cultural businesses. At the same time, Parliament enacted provisions that granted the federal government more extensive powers to screen and potentially block any foreign investment that could threaten national security.

Does my hon. colleague know how many investments have been blocked since 2009 under the foreign investment national security criterion?

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

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting that the NDP is stuck in the past. Its members want to keep talking about the last Conservative government or Mr. Harper. My recommendation is that the member and his party start thinking about their future, because it is dismal to tie their wagon to this calamitous Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to comment on the issue we are debating, which he did extensively. A lot of the questions from the government and the NDP are not about what we are debating today, which is whether cabinet should be included in the decision-making process.

I would like the member to comment in particular about the members from the Bloc, who seem to think it is okay for cabinet to be eliminated and therefore have no Quebec input on acquisitions made of Quebec companies. Does he thinks it is hypocritical of the Bloc to not express itself on whether it thinks cabinet decision-making should be there in any foreign takeover of a Quebec company?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a very large concern. One person should not have that much power in a democratic government, period. For example, let us say that the minister of the day is from Ontario and a foreign investor wants to come along from an authoritarian state and spend $30 billion buying a Volkswagen electric battery plant. The minister from Ontario would be under a lot of pressure to allow that type of investment to proceed, but it might not be in the national interest. That is why it is important to have multiple perspectives at the table when decisions are being made about investments that are national in scope and could have major effects on our GDP, our economy and our national security.

I agree that the Bloc is being hypocritical on this. It should support our amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, is the member saying that because a minister might be from one province, they would not have the capacity to represent the entire country and the interests of the entire country? Are we led to believe it is impossible for somebody who represents one particular region to represent the entire country? Is that not how we have been operating since Confederation?

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

Madam Speaker, I question the capacity of every minister in the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to this bill for the second time. Last February, I gave a speech on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. At the time, I talked about the many problems with this legislation and our intention to improve it in committee. I will come back later to the amendments we proposed. Some of them were adopted, while others were, unfortunately, rejected. I will start by talking about the genesis of this bill.

In the December 2021 mandate letter given to him by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry was asked to do the following, and I quote:

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 economic security threats from foreign investment.

I have to say that that was a legitimate request. Recently, there have been far too many cases where Canada's national security was potentially compromised because of the acquisition of Canadian businesses by foreign interests that are a bit too close to the central power. An update was more than welcome.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I would like to commend my Conservative Party colleagues, who are doing admirable work on the committee. I see it every week. Over the past two years, we have looked into several of this government's missteps regarding transactions and contracts that could compromise our national security.

One of the most recent examples is from 2017, when the Minister of Industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by the Chinese company Hytera Communications, which is partly owned by the People's Republic of China. This is just one of many examples.

After eight years of this government, too many foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and citizens' data. Rather than taking the situation seriously, the minister is giving himself more powers with this bill and not making up for the negligence that allowed the contracting incidents involving Zijin Mining, Hytera and the RCMP to happen.

A few weeks ago, during study of the bill in committee, security experts were invited to highlight the acquisitions that were not subject to a national security or net benefit review, even though the threshold under the Canada Investment Act had been met. Other witnesses pointed out the evolution of the dynamic of the Chinese private sector economy and the fact that many Chinese businesses operating on an international level are now beholden to the demands made by the Chinese Communist Party, even though they are not directly controlled by the state.

Charles Burton argued in favour of a stricter review framework for state-owned enterprises entering into Canada, including those belonging to the private sector who have their head offices in authoritarian countries like China. We proposed an amendment to that effect. We asked that the definition of state-owned enterprise be reviewed to include private enterprises that have their offices or their head offices in an authoritarian country. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. The definition of state-owned enterprise therefore remains too vague in our opinion.

Another point raised by witnesses was the need for greater clarity on which sectors should be considered strategic in order to ensure a more consistent review process. Professor Patrick Leblond argued that establishing a list of specific sectors necessary to ensure national security would prevent the review system from becoming entirely politicized. Knowing what we do about this government, more safeguards are needed.

To sum up what we studied in committee and what the witnesses told us, it is safe to say that this is too little, too late. There are too many flaws in this bill. It appears that this government is not taking sensitive transactions seriously and is not doing the necessary due diligence, putting the security of our government and our citizens at risk.

The most significant change this bill makes is the power that the minister is giving himself. I think this is unacceptable, which is why we introduced the amendment we are discussing today. Under the current act, the minister must submit to cabinet his intention to conduct a security review when a foreign interest acquires a Canadian company. Cabinet must give its approval.

In the bill before us, the minister gives himself the power to decide whether to conduct a security review with the consent of the Minister of Public Safety, but without cabinet approval. Only two ministers would be responsible for decisions with potentially very serious repercussions. Imagine two Ontario ministers deciding the future of a Quebec company without any other Quebec cabinet minister having a say in the matter. I hope that my Bloc Québécois colleagues are listening to me carefully and that they will vote in favour of our amendment. We know that this Liberal cabinet has made some very bad decisions, but this is a safeguard that needs to stay in place.

Here are a few more examples of the changes we were able to make to this bill, which was overly flawed. We secured a reduced threshold to trigger a national security review for all state-owned enterprises. It went from $512 million to zero dollars in asset value for companies not listed as trade agreement investors. This ensures that all investments made by state-owned enterprises will be reviewable. We also implemented a requirement that an automatic national security review be conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges.

We managed to add another factor to ensure that the elements reviewed as part of the national security review process include asset acquisitions by state-owned enterprises, not only new business locations, share purchases and acquisitions.

Finally, we implemented a requirement for the minister to conduct a national security review each time the investment review threshold is reached. Simply put, this amendment requires that the minister review any investments or acquisitions made in Canada that exceed $1.9 billion in enterprise value instead of it being an option.

The amendments that we proposed sought to create a more robust review process. We could have made even more improvements to this bill, but unfortunately at least seven of our amendments were rejected.

We are talking about national security here. This government did not take some of our issues and concerns seriously, and that is extremely important. For example, we sought to authorize the government to go back and redo a security review for Canadian businesses acquired by state-owned companies to allow for a more flexible process. The Liberals rejected our proposals.

As I said earlier, this government's desire to address the matter of national security is too little too late. The dynamic between nations is changing, and the future is uncertain. The Government of Canada must be more vigilant than ever. On this side of the House, we have always taken the matter of national security seriously, and Canadians can count on us to ensure that it will be a top priority in the future.

I want to once again add that I sincerely thank my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, because they have a very good reputation and do outstanding work to ensure our country's national security.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving on the committee with that hon. member, who does amazing work and has worked very hard on this bill.

I know one puzzling thing is that, as we are here in report stage actually debating a further amendment to the bill that we proposed, somehow, we have not heard from the Bloc Québécois on whether they believe that the minister, on his or her own, should be able to make the decisions on a foreign acquisition of a Quebec company, without any input from cabinet colleagues in Quebec. That is the change the government is trying to make to the bill, removing cabinet from the process, which could potentially remove Quebec from any input in the decision-making on a foreign takeover.

Could the member comment on why we have had such silence from the Bloc on this issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is quite incredible to see the Bloc Québécois aligning itself with the government again today to vote against an opposition motion to remove the carbon tax on all types of home heating.

The Bloc Québécois is in an odd position here, because we are proposing an amendment that would keep us—

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

I apologize to the hon. member, but I must interrupt.

I would ask members to lower their voices and not make a ruckus while the hon. member is answering a question.

The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière‑du‑Loup.

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

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that I hope the Bloc will vote with us on this amendment.

The possibility of having two ministers from Ontario or British Columbia who would be responsible for public safety, innovation and industry would mean that no one in cabinet would have any power or say over a decision concerning a company that could be sold in Quebec and acquired by other companies around the world. We therefore fail to understand the Bloc's position on this matter.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. colleague could comment on the importance of putting the safety and security of Canadian citizens, those who call this nation home, as the primary objective of government. We all know government has competing affections and responsibilities, but of utmost importance is the security and safety of Canadians. If that is not looked after, Canadians are actually not able to prosper in the way they deserve to. It is incumbent, then, upon the government of the day to ensure that decisions are taken with utmost sobriety and with the greatest judgment possible, and that a great deal of attention is given to research. In this case, of course, that has to do with foreign investments, in order to make sure that Canadians are kept safe and secure and that our prosperity is able to be furthered.

I wonder whether my colleague could comment on that and perhaps on where my Liberal government colleagues across the aisle maybe got that right and where they maybe got it wrong in the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, that is an important question since, indeed, when we talk about national security and the security of companies that might be acquired or that have a national security interest, it is vital that we ensure that the process is done properly.

Unfortunately, several of the amendments we proposed were rejected. They would have enhanced the quality of the work that the government in place should have done to ensure that we do not get taken for a ride, which is what happened in several cases where the minister approved acquisitions in Canada that never should have happened.

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

Madam Speaker, an amendment was promised at committee that all companies headquartered in China would be subject to an automatic review. The Liberals defeated that amendment. Could the member explain why?

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

Madam Speaker, we know that the current Prime Minister has the utmost admiration for the President of China. Again, when it comes to totalitarian countries like China that want to acquire Canadian technologies, it is vital that we find a way to act. I think that our amendments were designed to help—

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

I must interrupt the member. We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

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

Ultimately, at the very heart of this debate is the prosperity of Canadians and their well-being. For Canadians to prosper, the government of the day needs to do three things. It needs to grant freedom to the people: freedom to dream, freedom to take risks and freedom to earn a living. The government of the day needs to facilitate an environment of economic prosperity where folks can dream, take a risk and invest, where red tape is cut and where taxes are decreased so that people can flourish. The government of the day also needs to prioritize the safety and security of Canadians. Without our borders being secure and without the safety of Canadians being front of mind by the government, it is rather difficult to pursue these other things.

That said, we also know that the government needs to get out of the way as much as possible. When looking at this legislation and the amendments made to the Investment Canada Act, one must ask this question: Where does the balance lie between government engagement or involvement and none?

Here in Canada we have incredibly industrious and talented people. We have people who combine their talents with the bounty of the land to prosper, and they make amazing things possible. I think of the farmer who works his land and brings it to harvest. I think of the fisherman who works on dangerous high seas. I think of the miner who works miles underground. I think of the business owner who brings her passion to life through innovation and hard work to create jobs for others and, of course, to earn a living herself.

Because of the greatness of the people who call Canada home, I believe we can participate in a broader global economy as well. That is where the bill comes in. This broader global economy presents amazing opportunities for Canadian businesses and allows us to spur innovation. Our quality of life grows when the Canadian economy can offer so much to the world and to each Canadian. The world in turn, of course, invests in Canada. Our economy then grows even more and Canadians are empowered to live fulfilling lives to an even greater extent.

While the global economy generates many opportunities, it also invites threats, which is again where Bill C-34 comes into play. It is why it is so very important that we as Canadians are vigilant in making sure that the investments we are attracting into our country are ones that we indeed want to attract, ones that are good for Canada. It means that a robust review process is absolutely necessary to ensure this is the case. A thorough and robust review process, I would argue, is an absolute must.

The globe is not made up entirely of governments that desire peace and goodwill for all people. We know that, perhaps more now than many years ago. We know that some states pose a threat to the very way of life we enjoy here in Canada. They do not desire the prosperity of Canada, nor do they approach our market in good faith. In fact, they have other objectives in mind. These countries are not our friends. That is why it so very important that we get legislation like this right.

It is the duty of the government to ensure that Canadians are kept safe and secure, that good decisions are made and that the right investments are drawn into the borders of our land. Certain countries operate with covert agendas and work to undermine the security of our nation and the prosperity of its people. This often happens through the vectors of our international trade and the acquisition of Canadian assets. This is why, again, it is so important for security reviews to be done in a thorough and timely manner. I will use some examples to highlight what I mean.

In 2017, the Minister of Industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of the B.C.-based telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies. The Chinese company Hytera Communications wanted to acquire them. We know that Hytera Communications is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. A careful review should have been done but was not.

Fast-forward then to December 2022, and the RCMP actually awarded a contract for sensitive communications system equipment to this technologies firm. Again, I will remind the House that it is partially owned by Beijing.

This company then, in January, only a month after the contract was awarded to them, was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States, and then banned from doing business in the U.S. by President Biden.

This company is one that was given access to all RCMP communications services. Of course, we could imagine what that does to our overall safety and security as a nation and to the confidence that Canadians can place in the RCMP.

Here is another example. In 2020, even more insultingly, the Department of Foreign Affairs actually awarded a contract to a Chinese-based company called Nuctech, founded by the son of a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. They were contracted to supply X-ray equipment to 170 Canadian embassies and consulates. One can quickly imagine what the impact of such a decision would be, in terms of the types of intelligence that could be gathered through doing X-rays, especially in a place like an embassy or a consulate.

It would seem that in some ways it is almost on brand for the Liberal government to turn a blind eye to these important decision-making processes and just allow things to flow the way that they will, which is actually putting Canadians in jeopardy then. This is where responsibility needs to be exercised, and I would even dare say just some basic common sense. We have to take precautions in order to safeguard the people of this country and our economic prosperity as a nation.

Speaking of economic prosperity, what could be more prosperous than people earning a living for themselves and being able to take that money and invest it where it needs to go. What could be more important than government getting out of the way and allowing those Canadians to spend their money as they need to, in order to make ends meet.

In fact, right now, Canadians are actually finding it more difficult than ever before to do that. In large part, that is because of a carbon tax that is applied to everything from home heating to food to the fuel that we put in our vehicles. The Liberal government coming under immense pressure from the Canadian public, knowing that they were having a difficult time being able to afford life, made the decision that it would take the carbon tax off a small portion of people in Canada for a short time. It would hit the pause button and scrap the carbon tax for three years for those who live in Atlantic Canada and use oil heating. However, those who are in my province of Alberta who use natural gas are out of luck. They still have to pay the carbon tax.

We thought we would give the hon. members across from us the opportunity to make this fair for all Canadians, because, of course, choosing a favourite 3% is not fair and it is no way to govern a nation properly. The Conservative Party put forward a motion, and that motion was voted on today. It was a motion that invited all members in this place to vote to scrap the carbon tax for all Canadians, to make it fair from coast to coast to coast, which is what any government should want to do. It should be concerned about the unity of this great country and the economic prosperity of its people.

This place was given an opportunity to vote in favour, with the Conservatives, and to bring that motion into play, which would have saved Canadians thousands of dollars. Instead, the members across the way decided to vote that motion down. They voted to make life more expensive and less affordable for Canadians. They decided that they wanted the carbon tax to be applied to 97% of Canadians, but taken away from 3%. The government across the way determined that its polls were down in Atlantic Canada, and so it needed to show favour to that 3% but the rest could be punished. It is sad.

Parliament, this place, those who sit here were given an opportunity to be on the side of the everyday Canadian person. Instead, Liberals chose to play politics.

The bill that is before us today is yet another opportunity to be on the side of the Canadian people and to make sure that their safety, security and well-being is put first and foremost, which means that more than 10 amendments that were brought forward by Conservative members at committee should have been accepted in order to strengthen this legislation and make it better for all.

Unfortunately, again, the government of the day actually shot those amendments down. While the bill that we debate today makes some minor improvements, and I cannot fault the government for that, I do fault the government for not going all the way and making this bill even stronger. That is very sad. There could have been multipartisan co-operation to strengthen this bill. Again, the government of the day—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Lethbridge's speech, and I am particularly interested in the example she gave about Hytera. For those who are watching and do not understand, the Chinese-based state-owned company that bought it does not make money; it actually loses money every year. These state-owned enterprises are not only acquiring Canadian companies but also winning contracts by being the lowest bidder for Canadian companies not making money.

Could the member please inform the House what she thinks the motivation might be of a state-owned enterprise if it is not making money in acquiring these businesses?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the existing committee and the committee of industry before it actually took opportunity to study this issue extensively. In addition to that, there have been other investigations done. What has been found is that at times, there will be state actors that will make an investment in Canada or purchase a business that exists within Canada and do so for the sake of the state actor. It is in their interest, not in the interest of the Canadian people. It is not in the interest in the furtherance of our nation. It is not in the economic interest of Canada. Rather, in this case in particular, it is the Communist Party of China that ultimately will benefit from such a decision. Again, this is where proper review and consultation are so important when we look to allow these foreign investments in Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, understanding that in deciding to invest in Canada, there has to be a balance between what will generate prosperity in Canada and protecting national security, I wonder whether the member can comment on whether she thinks this bill would balance more toward the prosperity of Canada or more toward national security.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I may, with the deepest respect, I think it is a dichotomy that maybe is not necessary. It is possible to do both. It is possible to look after the safety and security of Canadians, to make sure our nation is put first and foremost, and also to want to cultivate prosperity for the Canadian people. Both can be done, but it comes down to the review process.

For example, in the bill before us, one of the things is that a minister would be able to make a decision on their own, without having to bring it to cabinet. By doing that, the minister would actually be acting unilaterally, and I would say rejecting the collective wisdom cabinet would have to offer in many of these cases. Cabinet is an assortment of individuals from many different ways of life, many different backgrounds and different regions, so its ministers have access to information that could help a robust discussion to take place and an educated decision be made. When cabinet is kept out of that process and the minister makes the decision all by himself or herself, Canadian people are put at a disadvantage.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like a quorum call.

And the count having been taken:

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

There are 20 members, including me, without the ones who are coming in.

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

Madam Speaker, in studying the bill before us, the Liberals had an opportunity to reflect what actually is going on in the world rather than just putting in a fairly basic bill that just focused on time rather than on national security. I am wondering whether the member could comment on the lost opportunities the government had in introducing the bill without any substance.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, there was an opportunity to look at the recommendations that came from a subsequent committee and really take them to heart. A tremendous amount of study, time and energy went into those recommendations.

Further to that, my hon. colleagues at the committee brought forward numerous amendments. I know for certain that 10 of them were excellent, but they were rejected. They could have strengthened the bill. All those amendments were based on substantiated evidence that was brought forward by experts. Why would the government reject them? Why would it not want to make the bill the best it can be?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity to talk about foreign direct investment in Canada, why it is important and why this legislation is before us.

Our viewers might ask why foreign investment is so important to Canada. There are many reasons that we should be looking to attract foreign investment into our country. Foreign investment provides Canada with the capital it needs to develop its full potential and, yes, that includes our abundant natural resources, such as oil and gas. Foreign investment in Canada is also a source of innovation, allowing Canada to benefit from evolving technologies. As one of the most educated countries in the world, we also use that foreign investment in innovation to build our own technological capacity.

Intellectual property will drive our future prosperity. We had better ensure that this advantage is not squandered by failing to properly review foreign investments.

It goes without saying that foreign investment creates many jobs across our country. Invariably, when a foreign investor makes its investment in Canada, this creates new job opportunities for Canadians. Related to that is the fact that jobs created by foreign investment generate higher wages. At a time when the worst affordability crisis of a generation is raging, when many families are struggling to make ends meet and pay for groceries, schooling, gas and rent, it is important that the jobs that Canadians have available to them also have decent paycheques attached. Foreign direct investment also drives increased productivity, leading to greater prosperity for our country. When foreign investors commit to building our economy, they also increase our tax base, which of course allows governments at all levels to deliver the services that Canadians expect.

Unfortunately, for quite a number of years now, especially since the current Liberal government came to power, Canada's foreign direct investment performance has lagged far behind that of many of its OECD competitors. What I mean by this is that there is more investment flowing out of Canada and being invested in foreign jurisdictions than there is foreign investment flowing into Canada. We actually have a very significant deficit. Why has this happened?

There are many reasons. I will not go into them all, but I will begin with this: Canada is suffering from regulatory gridlock. In other words, regulatory and approval processes at all levels of government are so complex and reflect such an overreach that nobody wants to invest in Canada anymore. We have labour force challenges, heightened uncertainty, deteriorating public finances and increasingly unmanageable debt loads.

By the way, our system is not tax competitive. For years, we have been talking about tax reform, yet over the last eight years, no reform has materialized under the current Liberal government. As a result, it has become too expensive to do business in Canada.

Most recently, the Liberal government decided that not only would it maintain a punishing carbon tax on everything, but it would also quadruple the carbon tax on the necessities of life, the things that Canadians need to survive, such as home heating, natural gas and groceries. Prices have skyrocketed as the Prime Minister ratchets up his carbon tax. Putting gas in the car is becoming prohibitively expensive for many families. He plans to quadruple the carbon tax on fuel for our cars as well.

To make matters worse, while the Prime Minister recently announced that he would temporarily suspend the carbon tax on home heating oil for 3% of Canadians, the remaining 97% of Canadians will receive absolutely no break from the carbon tax on their own home heating costs. I thought he once said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”. It is another vacuous promise from a failed Prime Minister who seeks to divide Canadians and pit them against one another.

The bottom line is this: The world no longer sees Canada as a great place to invest. It is the government's policies, grounded in an ideology that disregards the importance of making Canada a welcome place for foreigners to invest, that is the basis of these problems. We have to get foreign direct investment into Canada right, because it can raise our standard of living and give Canadians, especially young Canadians, the hope that they can live out the Canadian dream.

However, not all investments are necessarily in Canada's best interests. There are benevolent investments that benefit Canada's economy, and then there are investments that are being made by malevolent actors around the world who simply want to take advantage of Canada. As we consider which investments fall into each of these two categories, it is absolutely critical that we make the determination that we are going to focus on Canada's net benefit, on defending our sovereignty and protecting our national security. That is why we are discussing this legislation today.

Bill C-34 simply attempts to update the Investment Canada Act, an act that is quite a number of years old now, but it has not kept up with the changing conditions on the ground, in a rapidly evolving global environment. I would mention that, after eight years, the government has been unable to put in place the kinds of policies and regulations that would actually protect Canadians against their key industries and companies being bought out.

I will give an example. Hytera and its associated company Sinclair Technologies have been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States. In fact, President Biden has banned the company from doing business in the U.S. However, in 2017, the Liberal industry minister, Navdeep Bains, refused to conduct a full national security review on the sale of a B.C.-based telecoms company, Norsat International to China-based Hytera, which is banned from doing business in the United States. It was here in Canada buying up one of our companies.

The RCMP awarded a contract to Hytera to supply sensitive hardware for its communications systems. The Canada Border Services Agency has also been using communications technology from Hytera. Members may recall that a few years ago, the industry minister set up some rules about making sure that key Canadian companies, especially within the critical minerals space, would not be bought up by foreign hostile actors, yet that is exactly what happened.

In 2022, the Liberal government fast-tracked the takeover of Canadian lithium mining company Neo Lithium by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining without a national security review. Every single citizen in China, every single company, whether a state-owned enterprise or otherwise, has a responsibility to report to the government any information it asks for with respect to the business that they carry on.

We want to make sure that this bill does what it is supposed to do. Briefly, this bill would streamline the minister's ability to investigate national security reviews of these foreign investments. It would strengthen penalties for failure to comply with the Investment Canada Act's review provisions. It would create a new power to generate a list of sensitive industries. It would improve coordination with our international partners. It would also vest power to the minister, rather than allowing cabinet to make these kinds of decisions in the first instance.

Would it not be better, instead of having two eyes on this kind of transaction, to have all the eyes of cabinet focusing on whether an investment is in Canada's net benefit or whether it represents a risk to our national security? The bottom line is we tried to get some amendments. To their credit, some members of the committee agreed with us and we actually got four critical amendments passed. However, there were seven other amendments we tried to make, some of which were contained in a unanimous report from the industry committee, and guess what? The Liberals on the committee voted them down.

We can do better, but this is a start.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member reference that some countries are taking advantage of Canada. When he said that, I could not help but reflect on when I heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester suggest that Canada was taking advantage of Ukraine. Does the member believe that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the Investment Canada Act. We are not talking about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

I will say this, to complete my thoughts. The Investment Canada Act is there to protect Canadians against investments that are not in Canada's national interests. This act would be a small step forward—

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

We are going to other questions and comments.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will do something unusual and ask a question about the bill, unlike the Liberal members, who seem to want to talk about everything but the bill.

The bill is about returning cabinet decision-making to the Investment Canada Act process. I know the hon. member is a former international trade minister and knows more than probably anyone on the government side in the House about cabinet decision-making and the role and importance of it. Without it, we have had poor decisions by the now VP for Rogers, former member Navdeep Bains of the government, who basically said that anything China wanted to buy China could have without a national security review.

I wonder if the member would enlighten the House as to the proper way a cabinet decision-making process should be when a hostile state like China is trying to acquire the assets of our country.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that kind of decision takes a lot of thought. It takes a lot of due diligence. It is much better to have cabinet review, through a cabinet process, a national security-related matter or an investment when we are trying to determine what the net benefit to Canada is.

In cabinet, there may be 15, 20 or 25 people around the table. Everyone is asked to review all of the relevant documentation, and at the end of the day, they are able to discern whether something is in Canada's national interests. If we leave that decision with one minister, there is a huge risk that the minister will be co-opted by special interests within our country or outside of our country and a decision will be made that is contrary to our national interests.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back a little to when the hon. member was a minister. The deal signed at that time was the Nexen deal. It was signed by selling off Nexen to a Chinese national offshore company for over $15 billion. The deal was signed in Russia in secret by former prime minister Stephen Harper. Does the member have any comments on that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, at least this question relates, although obliquely, to the Investment Canada Act.

With respect to the Nexen transaction, prior to that point in time, Canada had absolutely no rules about how state-owned enterprises could invest in Canada or if they even should be investing in Canada. When that transaction came forward and cabinet had to review it, we said to hold it because with this transaction, there were no rules for us to be guided by. Therefore, Stephen Harper at that time articulated a clear set of rules for when countries like China or state-owned enterprises from countries like China, Russia and Iran, which are hostile actors, want to invest in Canada. We established the first set of rules for that, and of course, that—

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

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑34 will increase oversight and improve our international reputation. I wonder how much that might help us with our main financial partner, the United States, if we pass Bill C‑34 in its current form.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, this bill would not measurably impact investments coming from the United States, because we have special carve-outs for our free trade partners.

Having said that, it is important that we do have an act like that and that, from time to time, we review it—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and close off debate today on Bill C-34, the amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

I just want to say that, earlier today, I was very disappointed that, when we had our vote on the carbon tax, on taking it off constituents in my riding who have to pay the carbon tax on home heating, as we were asking for the same type of consideration for Manitoba as was given by the Liberal government to those in Atlantic Canada, the government would not extend those considerations to people across the Prairies.

After eight long years of this government, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have had enough of this Prime Minister and his punitive carbon tax that continues to penalize Canadians, especially those low-income Canadians who are seeing everything up go in value. The cost of inflation is eating away at their paycheques. Their buying power in the grocery store, as well as in the housing market, continues to erode.

I do have some concerns with Bill C-34, which I had hoped would have been addressed through amendments that were brought forward by the Conservatives.

I just have to thank my colleague, the shadow minister of investment and industry, for the work that he has done on Bill C-34 in trying to strengthen it and make it better. It has been 14 long years since this bill was updated, eight of them under this Liberal government.

I think all of us have concerns that the government has not taken issues around foreign investment and how it impacts things like national security very seriously. We know that it has not protected our critical infrastructure, which is at risk here if it falls under the control of foreign entities, especially those that are owned and controlled by their states.

What we witnessed, right across this country, is that critical minerals continue to get bought by foreign entities and that those state-controlled operations, first and foremost, are beholden to the despots and dictators who control their countries, rather than produce those critical minerals for our supply chains here.

Speaking of supply chains, this foreign investment act fails to address our economic sovereignty and how that relates to our overall national defence.

If one looks at making sure that supply chains are protected, although Canada is a smaller economy compared to our allies, we still need to make sure that we are getting critical supplies to build everything within our—

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

I apologize but the hon. member's phone is either vibrating or making some sort of sound.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was foreign interference. We are talking about national security and, of course, we know that we have had foreign interference in our democratic institutions right here. It all ties in together very well.

I will continue with how critical supply chains are. Although we may not be able to produce all things right here in Canada, we should be producing them at least within our Five Eyes, where we know there are the same security controls and concerns that we have here in Canada. Thus, we can ensure that we have control of things that are important for building defence infrastructure and national security infrastructure, as well as providing security and public safety for Canadians at large. Again, we fail to see that recognized to any great degree.

All we have to do is look at the recent record of the Liberal government when it comes to foreign companies owning businesses here that have engaged in espionage and continue to raise major security issues. We can also look at what is happening in our universities and what happened at the Winnipeg labs, where the government allowed and gave work visas to people who were doing research on behalf of the People's Liberation Army. That is the Communist Party of China's military organization. Scientists from the PLA were put into our universities and the Winnipeg labs; they got information on all sorts of intel and then were able to take that back to mainland China.

We have already talked about Sinclair Technologies, which provides a lot of the security screening equipment that we see at our embassies and that is used by the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and our airports. That company was bought up by Hytera, but the government continued to award contracts to Sinclair Technologies, which was now under the control of Beijing.

No one can forget about Huawei and the way the Liberals dithered, delayed and dragged their feet, kicking and screaming, until they finally banned Huawei from our 5G network here in Canada. This was after the United States raised red flags and banned it from its 5G network, as well as after Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom did so. Our Five Eyes partners stepped up and said, “We are banning Huawei, why aren't you?” However, there was no good answer coming from the government. It took another 24 months before finally making the decision to ban Huawei, which had incredible switches and back doors linking intel right into the PRC at its headquarters in Beijing.

We could also talk about TikTok. It is an app that many of our young Canadians are familiar with, and it is used around the world. We banned it from all our devices here in Parliament and in the Government of Canada. However, I know that there is great concern being raised in the United States about this technology, which is still being used by our millennials and by generation X. We know that the PRC's socialist ideology has been instilled in and permeated through TikTok, and it has been promoted and used more and more. We have to take these things seriously, because these state-controlled enterprises are not so much worried about the consumer. They are definitely not worried about our democracy right here in Canada or our allies; they are doing everything they can to undermine it.

I now want to talk about something that is very important to us, which is our critical minerals. We have large deposits of lithium across this country. We have already talked about Neo Lithium, which is now owned by Zijin Mining out of Beijing, and it is hoping to develop those mineral resources here and take them back to China rather than developing them in Canada.

We have Sinomine here, which got access to three large lithium deposits in northwestern Ontario. I will give credit, because the government actually made it divest those resources and sell them back into Canadian control. However, the government still lets Sinomine operate in Canada. If the government is so concerned about Sinomine controlling those lithium deposits in Ontario, why was it not concerned about Sinomine, just in 2019, buying Tanco mines in Manitoba? It also has a mine just outside my riding, headquartered in my riding in Lac du Bonnet, that has lithium and 65% of the world's cesium. It also produces tantalum, which is used in electronics and warheads on nuclear missiles.

All of the ore that they are producing right now in Manitoba is not refined in Manitoba. They ship it out raw, back to mainland China, and none of it ever comes back to Canada. This is something very concerning. The government turned a blind eye in 2019. Rather than looking at lithium and the Tanco mine, which, at that point in time, was U.S.-owned, and saying it wanted to make sure those critical minerals stay within Canadian or at least North American ownership, it allowed a Chinese company to come in here, buy it up and take all those resources straight back to China.

That undermines our overall goal. The Government of Canada has a goal to produce more electric vehicle batteries, and the lithium being produced right now in Canada is actually all going to China, undermining our ability to sustain the critical supply line to the EV battery plants that are being built in Ontario.

I just want to say that we do have a lack of coordination with the government, between its foreign investment plan and its Special Economic Measures Act, SEMA, which sanctions those who are responsible for gross human rights violations and for destabilizing peace and security in the world. We have things that have happened here in Canada. I will use Roman Abramovich as an example. He owned Evraz, the steel mills in western Canada. Again, we have not seen those holdings liquidated and provided to support Ukraine's war effort against the Russian invaders. We know there are Russian hawks out there who own things like Buhler Industries, which also sells out of Russia. Konstantin Babkin, one of the top people there, has been out there supporting Russia and denouncing Ukraine, yet they are still allowed to benefit from Canada's economy and our strong manufacturing industry.

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

It being 6:57 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.

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

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 2.

The question is on Motion No. 3.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

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

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The House would normally proceed with the deferred recorded division on the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Tuesday, November 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:12 p.m., so we could start Adjournment Proceedings.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, November 6, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motion at report stage of Bill C-34.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #442

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #443

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #444

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.