Evidence of meeting #70 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was foreign.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Schwanen, what can we do to better attract investment? Can we do a better job of transparency, particularly in terms of indicators and requirements, that the minister could make public to be accountable?
Should the agreements in which government invests be more transparent? For example, should we be making these things public in relation to what was announced by Volkswagen last week?
Vice-President, Research, C.D. Howe Institute
It depends. In the case of the investment you just mentioned, if we're competing with the U.S. or other potential sites where Volkswagen might invest, we might want to keep certain things to ourselves as a state—whether it's Quebec or Canada—keep our cards close to our chest, if you will.
From that perspective, if we have a good reason—and we need a good reason—it's all right that we don't disclose everything we've done to attract an investment.
Of course, we need stronger legislation to ensure that foreign investment doesn't negatively impact our security. However, we can still be transparent about the criteria we use to decide what does and does not constitute a security threat.
Transparency is good, but mostly to explain what criteria we use to accept or reject investments. That doesn't mean we have to give away any secrets.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Do you feel that the bill will be able to enhance protection of critical and strategic minerals for Canada?
Is our list complete enough?
Vice-President, Research, C.D. Howe Institute
Yes. In fact, as we just discussed, regulations are on the way, and they may extend or shorten that list—they will probably extend it.
However, we already more or less have the tools we need under the current legislation. As I believe it was Dr. Burton was saying, it's a matter of using them. In some cases, we may have woken up a little late, but we already have the tools. It's a matter of sharpening them, so to speak.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start with Mr. Burton and then go across the table again really quickly. I have only two and a half minutes, so I have to ask you to be as quick as possible. Keep it to 30 seconds each, if possible.
In looking at the global trend, there seems to be more scrutiny on reviewing investment and foreign investment coming in, in general. Some are presenting today to weaken the bill and some to strengthen the bill. I've always thought, quite frankly, especially because we've been increasing thresholds, that has not been a good strategy for review.
I'll start with Mr. Burton and go across. How do you think this legislation fits within the context of the global world, democracies and other things?
Senior Fellow, Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I'll answer very briefly, because of the shortness of time.
Canada is much less willing to be transparent about matters relating to national security threats than, let's say, the U.S. and the U.K. are. It seems to be a cultural thing that intelligence agencies seem to curate the information and—evidently, according to The Globe and Mail—share it with the Five Eyes and other intelligence agencies, but they don't inform Canadians of what's going on.
Leaving aside the legislation, we need to have a shift in culture, so that our intelligence agencies are more accountable, not just to the Canadian people but to Parliament. Some of the word salad that they've been giving to parliamentary committees on matters when they're asked very simple questions distresses me enormously.
Senior Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation
Very briefly, I think it's moving in the same direction as the Americans, in particular.
There is a war going on to dominate the new critical technologies. That war is being fought in the supply chain on stuff that normally would not be considered national security, but it becomes national security because it's part of the supply chain for our critical technology.
I think we have to amplify our focus in that area to be consistent with the Americans, because ultimately we will be part of that security supply chain.
Chair, Council of Canadian Innovators
I'm consistent in all of these committees, whether it's finance, INDU, SRSR or trade. This is for all the marbles. The digital and IP realms operate through legal frameworks. AI algorithms are causing an explosion in mental health in our children. It's causing national security issues. It's causing an erosion of our prosperity. We have to start to take this very seriously.
I know we all love this country and want the best for it. I'm trying to implore you to understand that this is where the game is being fought by everyone right now. We have all the ability to fix it and to create a very prosperous and safe future, but we have to take this very seriously.
Chair, Foreign Investment Review Committee, Competition Law and Foreign Investment Review Section, The Canadian Bar Association
Just very briefly on your question, I think definitely Canada is part of that trend that's going on globally.
One interesting perspective that we see in collaborating with lawyers in other jurisdictions is that they look at Canada, with a national security regime that's existed since 2009, and see that it's actually been here for quite some time. The powers have been there to intervene for nearly 15 years. There hasn't been that much intervention.
Certainly to characterize Canada as not having had a national security regime probably isn't quite.... It has a more mature regime than many other jurisdictions. Obviously, I exclude the United States from that list. In many ways, Canada is seen among allied countries as having had that regime for some time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.
Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for five minutes..
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thanks to all of you for being with us today. What you're saying is extremely interesting.
Dr. Burton, what's the biggest risk facing Canada right now?
Senior Fellow, Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Well, I think what Mr. Balsillie said is certainly a huge risk, but that's not my area of expertise.
I am concerned about our lack of response to these serious allegations of China's malfeasance and the enormous diplomatic cohort that China has here in Canada compared to in other countries. They have 146 people. Japan has 46. India has 35.
We really need to get on top of this and take the necessary action. I don't think it's that hard in terms of how we go about it. I think that's the largest risk.
Then, of course, we have lesser-funded hostile actors like Russia, Iran and North Korea. All of these should be constrained from engaging in activities that interfere with our democracy and society.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Do you feel that China went too far threatening family members of a Canadian MP? We found out this morning, but the government has known about it for two years.
Senior Fellow, Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Well, the Chinese regime threatens the family members in China of all people in Canada who engage in activities that the Chinese government doesn't like. The idea that they would be harassing Mr. Chong's relations in Hong Kong is not at all surprising to me. In fact, I've been aware of this for some time.
Seeing as CSIS knows who the diplomats are, I think that we send out a signal to them that emboldens them to do more of this kind of activity when we take no effective action against them. The reports today in Le Journal de Montréal that the police stations are still operating.... I just don't get it.
Why wouldn't we be bringing to account in a court of law those people who are engaged in illegal activities in Canada against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Balsillie, how do you feel about artificial intelligence?
Is it the biggest threat in Canada right now and for the next 10 or 20 years?
Chair, Council of Canadian Innovators
The number one threat to Canada right now is that we are not properly taking control of our IP and data assets. That includes all of the algorithms, the knowledge capital and data capital that Mr. Ciuriak referenced. Once we let it flow out....
In fact, we let it flow out as an instrument of public policy. I think if we don't start deliberate strategies to control that.... That's what has put us in that position. It's going to worsen at an increasing rate if we don't change our approaches.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
What's the most important thing that should be changed in the bill, particularly in that bill?
Chair, Council of Canadian Innovators
I would put conditions on our research funding, similar to what other nations do, so that it accrues to the nation-state. I would properly regulate IP and data for all of its—
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Does it have to be in the bill?
Chair, Council of Canadian Innovators
Does it have to be in this bill here? I think the nature of this bill is to assess any transaction for these effects. Therefore, when these effects are negative, you stop it. The point is, you have to have the expertise to assess it, like data as we talked about, and it has to cover the scope of activities that represent the completeness of these at play.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
If you put a rule in your bill, like Australia has, saying that a decision made by the government saying that a company can buy another one but it can be reversed two or three years later because it’s not good, does it frighten all the companies? Do you know if different companies decided not to go into Australia because of that, what's contained in the bill?