Bill C-34

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

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

Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I know that he runs his department with passion. I will speak briefly of the issue of closure motions in a minority government. As the closure motions keep on coming, we wonder if the government really understood the message it got from voters. They wanted it to reach agreements in the context of a minority government. Imposing one gag order after another is not what I would call taking into account the fact that it is a minority government.

We voted for Bill C-34, but as my colleagues said, there are a few blind spots. In particular, the last update to the Investment Canada Act dates from 1985. I was not very old in 1985. That was some time ago. I would like to hear my colleague comment about how this would have been a great opportunity to update it completely in order to protect our domestic head offices, not just address the issue of national security. We could have extended the scope of the act to include that.

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not on the merits of Bill C-34, but on the use of time allocation once again. On principle, I will vote against time allocation always because this is the place where legislation gets debated.

Many members of the House are not members of the industry committee. I am not allowed to be a member of the INDU committee. I have very strong views on Bill C-34 and national security considerations on takeovers of Canadian companies, but will not be allowed to speak to this because, yet again, the guillotine is being brought down. The Harper administration did this time and time again, and the opposition knew it was wrong then. The Liberals promised that they would not, and now it is routine. Time allocation is put on almost every bill.

The hon. minister knows the high opinion I hold of him. I want to be able to discuss this legislation. I was the first MP in the House to identify that the takeover of Aecon by the People's Republic of China should have had a national security review. For a long time, I was the lone voice. We finally got it, and the deal was turned down.

I care about this stuff, and I really think every member of the House has a right to participate in debates. Time allocation defeats that right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the minister to convince the public of the need for his gag order. We are debating a closure motion, but we are wondering why we are even doing that. The Liberals are only imposing closure because they already know that someone is going to vote in favour of it, and that is likely the NPD, which is part of their coalition.

My question will instead focus on the bill. I think that there is a missed opportunity in Bill C-34, and since I have the floor, I want to speak to that problem. The minister is here, so why not?

Bill C-34 modernizes the entire issue of national security to tighten the rules in that area. That is not a bad thing in the current geopolitical context. However, the government left out a major component that it would have been only natural to include in this bill. We have often raised, in the House and in public debate, the issue of modernizing the Investment Canada Act, particularly the economic interest component of it.

When a major investment is made in a business here or in a new business, or when a foreign entity purchases an existing business, how is it that the review threshold is as high as $1.7 billion? When this government took office, there was a review threshold of $300 million. That means that, now, with the exception of cases where there is a threat to national security, the government does not even take an interest in files until the review threshold reaches $1.7 billion, as opposed to $300 million.

Does the minister not think that is rather high?

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister on his intervention.

Bill C‑34 is certainly well intentioned. We also recognize the work that was done in committee, which enabled us to add to the bill the concept of sensitive sectors, including intellectual property and data banks that contain personal information.

However, the bill is still incomplete and that is the problem. If we were to apply the new rules proposed in Bill C‑34 to the projects submitted in 2022, only 24 of the 1,255 projects would be reviewed. That is not even 2% of all the projects. I would like my colleague to explain whether he agrees that we need to lower the review threshold to cast a wider net and have better rules that will make it possible to review all the projects so as to protect the local economy and prevent any loopholes in foreign investments.

Bill C-34—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the Thursday question.

Tomorrow, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement implementation act.

Next week, our priority will be given to Bill C-34 concerning the Canada Investment Act; Bill S-9, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52 to enact the air transportation accountability act.

Finally, next Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleagues whose energy motivates me when I am speaking.

Bill C‑34 was supposed to be on the agenda today, but the Conservative Party decided that we would instead discuss the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which has to do with the national housing strategy.

I think it is worthwhile debating report concurrence motions because they give the reports some visibility. The committees work hard on the report studies, and that was especially true when it came to housing. This is not the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We conducted an extensive study on the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. We now have another study that mainly involves the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, because it is the one that administers the national housing strategy programs. We wanted the CMHC to report on the results of the national housing strategy, which was put in place by the Liberal government in 2017 and runs for 10 years.

Is this the right time to be having this debate? Should we have been talking about something else? In any case, we were ready to keep talking about Bill C‑34, but the Conservatives decided for other reasons to have this debate on this report.

During the study leading up to this report, CMHC employees came to testify in committee. We wanted to be able to study an important program that concerns the current infrastructure and seeks to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%. The Auditor General was harsh because we were unable to determine the targets.

All that to say that it is important that we discuss this report because that will allows us to see where things stand, to take stock of the situation. No one here disputes the fact that there is a housing crisis. We talk about it often. The cost of living and the issue of housing is top of mind for everyone. In committee, we tried to determine whether the situation had been corrected and what else could be done in terms of the amount of money invested in federal programs that are administered by the CMHC. This is part of the key recommendations of this report that the Conservative Party is asking us to study today. The majority of parties adopted this report in committee. The Conservatives have presented a dissenting opinion. That is their right.

What matters most to us in the Bloc Québécois is that the 15 recommendations in this report be implemented and that the government be held to account because CMHC is being asked a lot of questions. Let us consider the example of homelessness in this report. It is rather inconceivable that we have a strategy to fight homelessness and yet we cannot assess chronic homelessness rates any more than we could when this report was released. Even today, when CMHC and Infrastructure Canada appeared before the committee, we were told that the situation is stable. It is rather worrisome that we have reached this point.

One of the strong recommendations in the report reads as follows:

That in order to reach the Government of Canada's own target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027–2028, that the Government of Canada show leadership by taking a whole of government approach, in collaboration with provinces and territories, to ensure wrap around services and other supports are made available to the those in need, and report back to the committee no later than December 2023 on a plan on how the government will achieve this goal.

This report contains some strong recommendations that call on CMHC and the government to take action. Although CMHC administers the national housing strategy, the government is still responsible for establishing the programs and objectives. It is investing $82 billion in the strategy through various programs. Given the housing crisis, we expect results. In collaboration with Quebec and the provinces, the program's objectives must be able to support supply and demand for social housing and affordable housing.

The committee asked CMHC some major questions. The report includes 15 recommendations. I will not read them all. We told CMHC that it must report on what is not working. Why have targets not been met? One could argue that the national housing strategy is a failure. It is a failure because the real needs centre on social housing and affordable housing. The most vulnerable members of society and low-income people are most affected by the housing crisis. The expectations are clear. Programs need to be more agile and more responsive. People should not have to wait for months, much less years, to get housing.

The federal government decided to take action and invest. It has the authority to spend money. There is no need for it to drag its feet for years before handing money over to Quebec and the provinces so that they can take action. Who is primarily responsible for housing in a given region? It is Quebec and its municipalities. The federal government decided to set up programs through its national housing strategy. We had to wait three years for an agreement. That makes no sense. As for the latest acquisition program, which was just adopted in 2022, we had to push the federal government and ask when was going to pay the $900 million earmarked for Quebec. Quebec demanded it. If the federal government wants to support housing, it has to be more flexible and tweak the conditions so that there can be real results. Many solutions have been put forward. It is interesting to hear all the witnesses in these studies. The government could act quickly.

As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has often said, some doors and housing units are boarded up. The national housing co-investment fund includes money for low-income housing that could be renovated. CMHC is freezing funding because renovation costs are higher now than they were then. We must take action. The process is taking a long time. We are talking about seven units and 300 units. It is not up to the federal government to do everything. However, if it decides to take action, it must take into account the fact that Quebec has the expertise and it is important to act much faster.

Some programs have made a difference, including accelerated housing programs. They were dedicated specifically to co-ops and non-profit organizations. Anyone could apply. It was faster. This produced results. Some things are working. CMHC was clearly called out in this report, which contains 15 recommendations.

I think it is important to talk about this today for one reason. When we do studies in committee, sometimes we delve more deeply into issues there than here in the House, unfortunately.

By all accounts, sometimes it is for strategic reasons that parties decide to talk about these things. In this case, we are talking about the housing crisis. I am not saying that the Conservatives are acting in bad faith, but sometimes we debate certain things without having the same objectives.

If everyone agrees that there is a housing crisis, we should be able to agree on what to do to ensure that the programs do not leave 10,000 homeless people in the street in Quebec. That is where we are.

Today, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation may come tell us that we will be short 3.5 million housing units by 2030. In Quebec alone, we will need 1.1 million. We can go ahead and build housing, increase the supply and provide an incentive by eliminating the GST, but will that have any impact on the cost of housing for renters? This will take time, and a lot of housing will need to be built.

In these programs, the concept of affordability is also debatable. Is $2,200 a month affordable for a person with an average income? It is not. In the national housing strategy programs, the definitions of affordability are not the same.

Now that the national housing strategy has been around for five years, is there a way to adapt and to look forward, taking into account what we are dealing with? Is there a way to take real action to avoid speculation, to do something about the financialization that is negatively affecting social and affordable housing and to invest in a way that enables non-profit organizations to buy properties on the private market? There are all sorts of solutions. Talking about it is useful, if we follow that up with action.

If the government shelves the committee reports and there is no accountability before the deadlines we set, that would be worrisome. That is why it is useful to discuss this report. Would it be useful to refer this report back to the committee? I would say no. However, I think that it would be useful for the government to account for what the committee and its witnesses are examining. The government also needs to recognize the real players who have knowledge and skills in the area of housing: our cities, our municipalities and Quebec.

The federal government decided to invest money with the objective of increasing the social and affordable housing stock. Now it must ensure that its actions complement that objective and that it does not impose conditions. That will go a long way to resolving the housing crisis.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc wanting to talk about Bill C-34, because at the end of the day, foreign interference does matter. It matters a great deal to Canadians. When we think of the position Canada is in, whether it is with regard to trade agreements or being a safe country to invest in, we are talking about the modernization of the Investment Canada Act.

Like the member opposite no doubt, I would like to see the bill go to committee. We could have done that today. It is going to take co-operation from the Conservative Party in order for that to happen. All signs are that it will not happen because the Conservatives want to filibuster and prevent the bill from passing. The member, as other members do, has concerns and would like to see it go to committee so those concerns can be addressed. I hope the Conservatives will at some point act and support Bill C-34 going to committee.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even if Bill C‑34 passes, modernization of the Investment Canada Act will have to continue. Part of the legislation arising from Bill C‑34 also concerns national security.

How will the government address the lack of provisions on proper analysis of economic benefit?

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

Mr. Speaker, typically, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the issue of the day. We all know that this was not supposed to be the issue of the day. This is the Conservative Party once again playing a political game on the floor of the House of Commons, preventing legislation from passing. The Conservatives do not really have anything to say about the legislation, so instead they bring in a concurrence motion to try to frustrate the government's ability to pass legislation.

That has somewhat been lost so far in the discussion that we witnessed after question period. Housing is, no doubt, a very important issue. I do not question that at all. In fact, when it comes to housing, when I was first elected back in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I was the housing critic along with the party whip at the time. I can say that even prior to that point, I had an active interest in housing and in non-profit housing in particular with the creation of the Weston Housing Co-op, and in working with associations like Blake Gardens and Gilbert Park to a certain extent after I got elected, on the Gilbert Park aspect of it. I had an interest in infill homes and the importance of having governments engaged in dealing with housing issues, from suburban new homes to inner-city housing problems of dilapidated homes that needed to be torn down, to vacant lots that were available and to housing renewal programs to improve the housing stock. Therefore, the issue of housing is not new to me at all. I am very familiar with it and I am very comfortable with respect to the way that the Government of Canada in the last number of years has approached this issue.

Before I get into some of the details of that issue, the reason we are debating once again another concurrence motion has not been lost on me. We all know that there is a finite amount of time here in terms of debate. The Conservatives always cry over there not being enough time for debate when it comes to government legislation. They constantly do that. They will whimper away. They will cry and say they want more debate, that we are limiting debate and bringing in time allocation. The Conservatives do not want to sit late nights; they have demonstrated that. They have shown that they will adjourn debates even before the day is over, but they will whine and cry that there is not enough debate on government bills. At the same time, they will prevent government bills from being debated. Then they will say that today's choice is housing, so they dig in and find the issue of housing and say that here is a super important issue. Yes, it is important, but every issue that the Conservatives bring to the floor through the concurrence debate they will claim is an important one. However, the primary purpose is not to debate the issue at hand; it is to prevent the debate on government bills.

Again, let us look at the amendment that has been brought forward and that the Speaker just finished reading. What is the essence of the amendment? The Conservatives want to bring it back to committee. I wonder if the member who moved the motion even brought it up at the agenda. We are going to have three hours of debate on this motion. Did the Conservative Party even raise the issue of having this debate at the standing committee? I would not be surprised if it did not. Actually, I would think that the members know full well that everything we are going to be debating for three hours here could have been very easily done in the standing committee. However, the problem with doing that is that it would have obligated the Conservatives to come up with some other excuse or to allow the debate on what was supposed to be debated today, which was Bill C-34, the investment Canada bill. The Conservatives talk a lot about foreign interference, but when the rubber hits the ground, they are slipping and sliding all over the place.

At the end of the day, there is a very strong correlation between foreign investment and foreign interference, and what we have seen is the Conservative Party now using the issue of housing as a way to allow the debate to continue. The Conservatives are making it very clear that if we want to see that legislation pass, like many other pieces of legislation, the government will ultimately have to bring in time allocation. We have to wait until we can get support from an opposition party in order to be able to bring in time allocation. Conservatives will tell people outside the chamber that they are concerned about foreign interference, but if anything, all they do is cause a filibuster and put up roadblocks to prevent good legislation from ultimately, in this case, going to committee, where it can actually be debated and talked about in great detail and brought toward amendments. The current government, unlike the previous government, is actually open to amendments if they are good ones, even if they come from the opposition side.

The Conservatives did the same thing in regard to the Ukraine debate and on many pieces of legislation. One would think they would be a little more sensitive in terms of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. If we can pass legislation, I believe it in Canadians' best interest, like a lot of the legislation we are bringing forward. The debate the Conservative Party wants to have today, in terms of housing, could just as easily have been done in a standing committee; in fact, the amendment is suggesting that it be done and brought to a standing committee of the House.

If only we were able to use the government business portion to deal with government bills, maybe we would not have so many whining and crying Tories saying we are bringing in time allocation and not allowing enough time for them to debate government legislation. I would argue they cannot have it both ways. They cannot bring in all of these different filibuster types of motions and then go to Canadians and say that we are not allowing them to debate bills. That is what they are doing, and to make it even more of a challenge, when we as a government say we want to provide more time and sit until midnight, the Conservatives are the first ones who jump up, yelling and screaming, and say no to that. How many times have we seen Conservatives stand up in their place and say, “I move now, seconded by so-and-so, that so-and-so be heard to speak”? It is not so the person can speak; instead of debating, it actually causes the bells to ring. That is what I mean by Tory games. That is really what this is: a reckless Conservative Party of Canada that does not understand the value of being more productive on the floor of the House of Commons. That is really quite unfortunate, because we all collectively pay the price.

I talk about housing because I, as I know my colleagues do, take the issue of housing very seriously. Even at times when the opposition is doing nothing but focusing attention on character assassination, we continue to be focused on the issues that are important and relevant to Canadians, whether it is inflation, interest rates or the cost of housing.

I go back to 1993, when something was felt here in Ottawa at the time, by every political party inside the chamber. Whether they were Reformers, Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats, every political party back then advocated that Ottawa's role in housing should be marginalized. I remember it well because I can remember debating, in the north end of Winnipeg, why it was important that Ottawa play a role in housing in Canada, why we should ensure, within the Constitution, that Canada, as a national government, plays a role.

Whether it was back then, when there was no political will, it seemed, from any political party to recognize the value of a national government's playing a role in housing, or today, my opinion has never changed. When one thinks of housing as an issue, one would probably have to go back to the world wars to find a prime minister who was as keen on developing a housing strategy. In fact, that is what this report is about. The Conservatives want to criticize the national housing strategy. They are saying, in essence, that we should not have one. They are being critical of the money we have invested in the national housing strategy.

I do not know the exact numbers today. If I were to speculate, I know that when I was the housing critic, we had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000-plus non-profit housing units. Those housing units, in places like Gilbert Park, which I have represented for many years and still do at the national level now, provided affordable housing. That is not the only option out there; there are other forms of affordable housing that are important to support. When one thinks of the raw numbers, of a direct grant that goes toward a block of housing units, the federal government spends literally millions, going into the hundreds of millions of dollars every year, supporting non-profit housing from coast to coast to coast. The national housing strategy took that into consideration in terms of providing the assurance of multi-year budgeting potential. It provided the finances to ensure that a large portion of the non-profit housing stock can actually be maintained through capital improvements.

When the Conservatives start criticizing the national housing strategy, they need to factor in the tens of thousands of homes in the regions of Canada that are, in fact, being supported through the strategy, directly and often indirectly also. They want to have that kind of a debate. They want to hear some of the numbers. I would suggest that, at least in part, the motion that was brought forward makes some sense, in the sense that it is a great issue for a standing committee to deal with.

Think in terms of the alternatives to housing that are government-owned and government-operated, either directly or indirectly, through different groups or the municipalities or provinces but supported in good part by federal dollars. Think outside that box. Think of housing co-ops. Before I was elected as a MLA, there was the Weston Residents Housing Co-op. It was a way in which we were able to help revitalize a community and, at the same time, provide affordable housing for many people. I think of Willow Park and Willow Part East. Willow Park East might be the oldest housing co-op in Canada and possibly even in North America. Housing co-ops, I believe, are a wonderful opportunity for people to have joint ownership. There is a huge difference between a housing co-op and, let us say, an apartment block. I always say that in a housing co-op, someone is a resident, not a tenant, because they own. They have collective ownership of the property, so they have a lot more in terms of opportunities. For the first time in years, we now have a government that has been supporting housing co-ops and wants to see the expansion of that area.

What about non-profit groups? One of the most successful non-profits we have in the country today is Habitat for Humanity. In the province of Manitoba, it excels. It has probably put in more infill houses than any government program that I can recall offhand. In the province of Manitoba, it is about 500 brand new homes in communities, whether in Winnipeg North, The Maples, Point Douglas or everywhere in between. It is making these homes available to people who would never have had the opportunity to get homes. The federal government supports Habitat for Humanity because we recognize the important role that non-profit agencies have when it comes to housing.

We have taken a litany of budgetary actions that have provided opportunities for the federal government to play a strong leadership role in housing. The Conservatives say that the housing market is what it is today because of the federal government. I hate to think what it would have been like if Stephen Harper were the prime minister today. There are challenges, but it is wrong to say that it is all about Ottawa and the Government of Canada. I have news: It is not going to be the Government of Canada that resolves the issue, in terms of providing money. The Government of Canada has a strong leadership role to play, something the current Leader of the Opposition and Stephen Harper never provided when they were in government. We are at the table. We are working with municipalities and provinces, developing programs and encouraging the type of builds we need. That is why we have the rental support for new units to be built, anticipating tens of thousands of new units to come on stream over the coming years as a direct result of the federal government's initiative of getting rid of the GST on new builds.

Some provinces are now piggybacking on that particular policy. It is maybe four or five provinces to date. I hope the Province of Manitoba does likewise. It would ensure additional units being built in the future. It is not just Ottawa. In some provinces, the housing crisis is more severe than in others. We feel the pain in all areas. That is why the desire of the government is to try to assist and support local municipalities, not to take a big stick and whomp them over the head, saying that this is what they have to do. It is working with municipalities and working with the provinces. It is recognizing that non-profit groups also have a role to play. I believe it takes a team. The private sector obviously has to play a role; in fact, it will be playing the largest role in terms of overall construction.

The federal government is at the plate in many different ways, whether with the national housing strategy or with implementation through numerous federal budgets, to be there to support Canadians on the important issue of housing. We will continue to be there because we understand that it is an issue Canadians have to plow their way through, knowing that the federal government has their back and that it is doing what it can as a national government to ensure that the issues of affordability, the number of homes and renovations are all being taken into consideration.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With respect to Bill C-34—

[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.

[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.

[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.