Evidence of meeting #96 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, are you looking for a recorded vote on this one, or are we okay on division?
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The question is on clause 304.
(Clause 304 agreed to on division)
Thank you, Ms. Henderson and Ms. Côté, for your appearance.
We'll turn to division 19, clauses 407 to 441. We have witnesses here from Finance on the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. There are no amendments on these sections until we get to clause 442.
Does anybody want to raise anything on clauses 407 to 441, or can we agree to vote on those as a block?
Hearing nothing, shall clauses 407 to 441 carry on division?
(Clauses 407 to 441 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 442)
On clause 442, the first is amendment NDP-31.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses who came, but we didn't ask them questions. Now turning to one of our last amendments, my last amendment—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If I could interrupt for a second, Pierre, we have quickly rolled through Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, so you folks are off the hook with no questions.
We'll now go to the invest in Canada act under division 20, and amendment NDP-31 is the first amendment under clause 442.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two amendments on this issue. Section 5 of the new Invest in Canada Act refers to the Invest in Canada mission, the new institution that will take the steps to attract investors to Canada.
Section 5 has paragraphs (a) and (b). My amendment adds paragraph (c), which reads as follows:
(c) ensure that foreign direct investment in Canada contributes to creating, maintaining and protecting jobs and to promoting labour and environmental laws.
The goal is to ensure that the mission set out in the Invest in Canada Act includes a provision clarifying that not all investments have a positive impact. Some investments may jeopardize the jobs of Canadians. Foreign takeovers of Canadian businesses are often positive, but that's not always the case.
In addition, we want to ensure that, when Canada takes steps abroad to attract investors, we encourage compliance with our labour and environmental laws. We have to make it clear that we take the protection of the environment and our workers very seriously. Canada is not a country where anyone can invest as they see fit, with no restrictions.
As part of our efforts to attract investors, there is nothing preventing this from being applied without it being specifically set out in the act, but I think that including it makes it more explicit, clearer. So investors are advised in advance that, if they want to invest here, it will be for the benefit of Canada, to protect jobs, workers and the environment, and that these conditions will be non-negotiable.
That is why I introduce my amendment. The idea is to add a paragraph to section 5 on the mission of the future Invest in Canada institution.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I certainly appreciate my colleague's intentions on this, however, when a FIPA, or a foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, is made, it often outlines some of the concerns that are addressed here. Then in the next stage of a free trade agreement, there actually is an environmental assessment as well as an overview on human rights as well, even dealing with labour laws. One of the reasons why I supported the TPP.... Hopefully the government will be able to find plan B for TPP or whatnot. I don't think it's like this agency will be promoting Canada's interests abroad. We have established mechanisms that have been time tested; we have FIPAs with large countries; we have FIPAs with small countries and they are a very good process. Free trade happens if both parties benefit, but again, if we're going to be entering a more sophisticated relationship with another country, FIPAs and free trade agreements, I believe, do exactly what the member here is proposing.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I fully understand what my colleague is saying, but I don't see why it could not be included in the act. They are not mutually exclusive. The fact that a piece of legislation becomes clearer and more explicit can only be positive, in my view. The goal is to provide clearer and more specific guidelines to those who want to invest in Canada.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, my colleague will have the opportunity to respond to the arguments presented by the NDP member for Sherbrooke.
I would like to remind the committee that, in our view, Bill C-44 is not a good bill. Some of its elements would be worth discussing outside an omnibus bill. Invest in Canada is one of those elements.
It goes without saying that we Conservatives do not object at all to foreign investors in Canada, as long as they comply with our regulations, of course. What we are challenging in this approach is the creation of another structure, another agency, another stage—some will say another “thing”—that will make the process more cumbersome.
For decades, we have been engaging in international trade successfully. In fact, we have been welcoming foreign investments for centuries. So there's no problem with that. But the creation of another crown corporation and all the ensuing steps will weigh down the system. The government is trying to suggest a way of doing things that we feel is not right.
Let's allow the free market to do its job and the foreign investors to come here, as they have done up to now and as Canadians do abroad. We always have to strike a balance. When our entrepreneurs invest abroad and acquire new businesses for the benefit of Canadians, we applaud enthusiastically. Now it should be the same the other way around. We cannot, on the one hand, welcome the fact that Canadians invest abroad and, on the other hand, be angry when foreign nationals invest in our country. We have to maintain a balance.
Mr. Chair, we will therefore oppose all the clauses that follow. Please take note that we will be asking for a recorded vote for each one.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I know the direction the good member from the NDP is coming from, but I think this is in relation to a mistaken understanding of how trade starts.
Trade starts to the benefit of both parties, but we're not talking about government to government; we're talking about individual private interests. For example, there are some British Columbia wineries that, before the FIPA with China, actually went to China. They did not have any protections under any agreement, but because they had wine that Chinese consumers wanted, they went at their own risk and they basically went out there for those new markets. You get to that critical mass where there is enough private interest but there is friction because there are regulations that are not harmonized and questions of legality and protections. If someone wants to start exporting on a regular basis, perhaps they want to start purchasing land in China so that they can distribute their wares, and then there becomes a public interest in seeing investment protected on both sides.
I don't necessarily agree with this model, but we have to bear in mind that it will not necessarily always be government that initiates trade. I'm hoping that these groups will help facilitate those private interests being able to build a public interest, the FIPAs, and the free trade agreements that deal with all the things that the good member has raised here in terms of environmental standards, human rights, and labour standards. That's the work of government, as there is a bigger public interest.
I certainly appreciate where the member is coming from, but it's inappropriate to put in the mandate of someone who is going to start putting on the table...rather than saying how do we get Canadian businesses to connect with consumers and purchasers in this country that we're operating in to start saying they actually have in their mandate that they first have to start settling laws? Of course, the consumers and the purchasers of those goods are going to say they can't deal with that because they are not the government.
This is actually an impediment towards those first-stage interactions that are initially private. I understand that this gentleman wants to have the public interest observed and these good things happen, but that's the very basis of trade: having those private interests, seeing new markets, and establishing deals that work to both sides. Then government can come in to sort out and to create stronger ties.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will remind folks that witnesses Mr. Marcotte, Mr. LeBlanc, and Ms. Pellerin, are here if there are any questions to them.
Mr. Ouellette.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
In our letters to other committees, did we include this? It was a study by another committee.
You'll think about that.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes. We heard the witnesses on this one. We'll check on the letters, but I don't think we farmed this one out. I think we dealt with it ourselves.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you very much.
I have just a few questions for the witnesses. I promise I'll be short for my colleagues.
How is the Invest in Canada hub going to be different from the BDC or the EDC?
Louis Marcotte Director General, International Business Development, Investment and Innovation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
The Invest in Canada hub is not going to be a financial institution. It's a promotional entity. It really is there to attract foreign investors and to make the sales pitches. Then the hub can introduce those investors to the Canadian stakeholders such as BDC and EDC, or other departments, agencies, and even the provinces and municipalities, to complete the value proposition so that the investor makes a decision to choose Canada.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Is there an idea about where the Invest in Canada hub will be located? Are you going to places like Toronto, or is it going to be spread around the country in places that might not receive a lot of foreign investment, such as, for instance, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or Atlantic Canada?
