Just to clarify, this was the one I was distributing at the end of the last meeting that had the reference number ending in 376, and everyone has that.
This section amends clause 16, as we know, and the genesis of the idea comes from recommendation six in the INDU report on the Investment Canada Act that was released in 2021. If I could reference members to recommendation six:
That the Government of Canada encourage Canadian entities to keep ownership of intangible assets developed with federal funds, including intellectual property, by requiring, when appropriate, that they return moneys received from federal programs or subsidies in full or in part.
The proposed amendment is drafted to reflect that, and the report at the time said that the question is not whether a foreign investment can be threatened by Canada's national security. Virtually all witnesses in that report recognize that. Rather, the question is whether the Investment Canada Act and its administration effectively protect Canada's national security and evolving circumstances.
On the intangible asset side, we had quite a bit of testimony on the issue of how our economy has evolved over the last 20 years from a tangible asset economy, as we heard Mr. Balsillie talk about, to intangible. More than 90% of the value of the S&P 500 is now in intangible assets.
There's a concern about those assets, particularly those developed in Canada. By my rough calculations—and the ISED officials probably have a better figure than I, but if you include the SR and ED tax credit—we're spending just about $16 billion or so. With granting councils, the clusters, all of the various programs that ISED has, plus the SR and ED tax credit, we're spending quite a bit on invention, as I'll call it—the invention that leads to IP.
We've seen recent issues that I know the officials have been dealing with, for example, issues related to COVID and Medicago in Quebec City, where over $200 million of taxpayer money was invested in producing a plant-based COVID vaccine, which apparently has Health Canada approval yet has not been produced. Now that company has been sold, and we don't have access to it.
There's a concern that we want to stop the free flow of capital in capital markets. We wouldn't want to do that, but if that IP involves that kind of situation, where you have over $200 million of taxpayer money to develop it, consideration of that should be given in the review of net benefit, and there should be a requirement that, if that IP leaves the country, some part of that, if not all of it, will be paid back as the price of doing business.