House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was election.

Topics

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his intervention.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is currently conducting a study on the green economic recovery. Two weeks ago, Benoit La Salle from SRG Mining appeared as a witness to talk about the critical and precious metals aspect. There is no guarantee that these metals will remain under Quebec or Canadian ownership, because, at this time, it goes to the highest bidder. However, the highest bidder is not necessarily what is best for Quebec and Canada. These metals are is the oil of the future, what oil was in the early 19th and 20th centuries. The modern-day equivalent is precious metals like lithium and graphite.

If we cannot protect our deposits and our companies that acquire these deposits, if we cannot supply our companies, like Lion Electric, which everyone applauds and governments subsidize to ensure growth, if this company cannot procure lithium, then it will all be for naught, because we will not be able to make the investments needed to ensure the growth of our economic development. These are examples that really matter to me.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue does a great deal of work on our committee, and I certainly appreciate what he has done.

We heard from probably 25 expert witnesses on this issue. He mentioned Mr. Balsillie and the encouragement he was giving everyone to make sure that we understood the importance of intellectual property.

I am curious if the member could describe the frustration he has over the fact that six of the nine recommendations the committee spent a lot of time on and the witnesses spoke to were rejected by the Liberal members on our committee.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View, who inadvertently gave our committee a somewhat amusing demonstration of how important it is for all Canadians to have a safe and reliable Internet connection at all times. That is the subject of another study that we, including my colleague, conducted at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

I also want to talk about his dedication to agricultural issues. When I talk about having an economy of business owners, about food safety and sovereignty, and about all kinds of issues connected to protecting our economy, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View is there to stand up for farmers. I often hear him doing so.

I want to reiterate that my frustrations about our recommendations are about how important it is for the minister to be accountable. If the Conservatives retake power, or whoever Canadians choose to form government, in the short, medium or long term, I hope they will remember how important it is for the minister to be accountable and transparent. This is essential because we need predictability.

The other aspect is to set thresholds as low as possible so that the government can intervene and protect our businesses from foreign takeovers.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleague for how co-operative he is. It has been good to work with him. The industry committee generally has a good reputation for taking a thoughtful and less partisan approach. I want to thank the member for his really solid contribution here. He came really well prepared and that needs to be acknowledged.

I want to ask him a specific question about Rona's takeover of Lowe's, especially given the pandemic and that lumber materials have been increasing in price. What we have now is a loss of competition and supply, and I think that really affects people's quality of life in a different light than ever before.

I would like to ask for the member's reflections on that, because Rona is, of course, a proud Quebec company that exists not only in Quebec, where its foundation is from, but across our country.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:05 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West.

To be honest, I must say he is a mentor to me at the industry committee. I think it is important to mention that. If I am not mistaken, he has been a member of that committee for around 15 years. He always takes a constructive approach as he stands up for the interests of his constituents. I learn a lot from him.

As for the acquisition of Rona, a company founded by Rolland and Napoléon, yes, that has major consequences. The main problem that we have in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is the labour shortage. Why are we unable to attract labour? One of the reasons is that we do not have any more housing. Why do we not have any more housing? Because now it costs too much to build.

The price of materials is staggering. Construction in Canada is stalled because we cannot get our materials. There are many reasons for that. There is the federal government's lack of investment in the forestry industry. We have to ensure we have a significant domestic market in Canada and Quebec. There is also access to suppliers and price negotiations.

How can we help our economy back home? It is not a simple matter of increasing the value of the Canadian dollar only for our materials to become more expensive. Suppliers have to shop locally to build homes and meet the needs—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. I will allow one more question.

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the member talk about the importance of safeguarding resources during this COVID time, and would ask, on a bit of an expanded note, if that includes the safe, ethical, environmentally friendly oil that comes from Alberta.

However, more specifically to the debate at hand, we have seen massive disruptions in the supply chains because of COVID-19, which has put a specific stress on many corporate interests across our country. Certainly, the scope of this report and its relevance to the current pandemic is to ensure that there are safeguards so the disruptions that have taken place because of the pandemic do not put Canadian business and industry at risk. I wonder if he could comment further on that.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:05 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot.

I would not go so far as to say that the oil in Alberta is ethical, but that is a debate for another day.

I would like to talk about something that floored me. Members will remember the airplane that departed China and was diverted by the U.S. government. This plane was carrying PPE and medical supplies that hospitals across Quebec and Canada desperately needed. I do not know how much it cost or how the federal government negotiated to try to bring those supplies back to Canada, but this situation goes to show just how vulnerable we are. I also do not know how much the government's vaccine portfolio cost, since Canada and Quebec were unable to manufacture their own vaccines.

Having an economy of business owners and economic nationalism means not being reliant on foreign takeovers or foreign economies. It means not being caught up in bidding wars with other countries and their needs. A mask can cost us four or five times more because demand is very high.

In theory, a G7 country with a strong economy should be able to produce its own equipment. That is what COVID-19 laid bare and what the Investment Canada Act can also demonstrate.

We almost lost our flagship businesses, whether it was Air Transat or Air Canada. When Air Transat was for sale, had the shareholders received an interesting offer from a foreign country that was ready to invest a little more money because the company was vulnerable, we might have lost out. In the end, who would be the losers? That would be the consumers, the citizens of Quebec and Canada.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about this report. It is a very important one. The discussion of the Investment Canada Act has been very lively for many years.

This report is the result of a motion from the member for Calgary Nose Hill, and there was much support to bring it to fruition. I want to thank all the witnesses who came forward to present and also those who made submissions. I also want to thank the staff. Our legislative crew is excellent. The researchers and analysts always did a good job during the process on a very complicated issue. We have a report that is quite extensive, about 50 pages of materials that have been condensed, reflecting some of the concerns that emerged from the sale of Canadian companies, but also the loss of sovereignty, in some respects, in the lost investments.

I will start, though, by discussing something that took place in the debate tonight that related to the parliamentary secretary. It will be interesting to see how the Liberals configure their position out of that. I asked about recommendation 2, which is, “That the Government of Canada introduce legislation to amend the Investment Canada Act so that thresholds are reviewed on an annual basis.” The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, if we think it is significant, responded by saying he supported the recommendations of the committee, yet the Liberals put in a dissenting opinion. They could have put in a supplementary opinion, but they put in a dissenting opinion, which said, “Under the ICA, the annual net benefit review thresholds are reviewed and revised by the Minister on an annual basis, rendering the proposed legislative amendments unnecessary.”

Since the parliamentary secretary represents the Prime Minister, I am wondering whether he is having second thoughts to the committee members or to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, who did not address this, or whether the parliamentary secretary is freelancing by himself on this issue. I do not know which it is, but it will be interesting to sort that out because that is the reality of what has been presented to us today.

The reality is that the thresholds have been raised over a number of years and have created quite a concern among Canadians and businesses. They have been raised because of the iconic ones that we have lost, Falconbridge, Inco, a whole series that are name- and brand-recognizable firms. However, what has been presented, and what the previous speaker so eloquently discussed, is that there are smaller firms right now that go under the radar of the threshold and are gobbled up on a regular basis. In fact, there has been an exponential increase.

Part of the discussion we had at committee and part of the report is that, under COVID-19, a lot of vulnerable businesses could be purchased by non-democratic governments. I do not want to speak to just one particular country at the moment, but the reality is that some countries are using their public assets to purchase Canadian companies. With the COVID-19 issue related to the vulnerability of businesses, we have a lot of start-ups and medium-sized businesses that are very vulnerable to this.

This issue goes back quite some time, at least from my perspective. I first raised it at the industry committee with regard to non-democratic governments buying Canadian companies back in 2004. I had discussed it before, but we actually had hearings at that time. There was a headline in The Globe and Mail, “Chinese bid prompts MPs to eye revising investment act”. That was because of Noranda being purchased by China Minmetals.

At that time, I raised the question as to whether it is appropriate to have that type of investment, because it is a non-democratic government. It is not necessarily that it is China, but there are others as well. China decided to go on a purchasing spree after 2000 across the globe, and that included Canada. If we look at the sliding scale of purchases and investments, they are quite significant. That brings up a lot of questions about privacy and control of ownership of different types of assets, and, I would say, it has played itself out in terms of the housing market and speculative approaches that have had significant consequences for Canadians.

I pushed for it, and it came back in Parliament again in 2007. A Toronto Star article said, “Security may be factor in buyout review”. When I pushed for Industry Canada to look at this again, it was about looking at a national security clause in review, which has now been introduced as part of it, because a lot of companies were being purchased that were important to our national security.

This comes from my interest in it representing Windsor, Ontario where the manufacturing centre has been part of our DNA since our establishment as a community and as part of Canada. During the First and Second World War and recently, manufacturing has been part of our heritage. In fact, during the Second World War, we were very much a logistics centre for producing materials to fight fascism.

I have always viewed manufacturing as part of our national structure of defence and also our national importance of connecting people to jobs and meaningfulness and also self-determination. If we did not have that capability, we would not be able to do the things that we do today. Back at that time, it was maybe more raw materials and turning them into things that were used, versus today where there is lack of that vision.

I will always remember and I reference quite often the Prime Minister going to London, Ontario and saying that we actually had to transition out of manufacturing. That was pretty offensive because we do not need to just do rip and ship. One of the tragic things about our oil and gas industry is that we do not have enough refining capacity. I have seen Oakville, for example, lose Petro-Canada. I have seen several other refineries close down as opposed to being invested in, often because of the loss of Canadian control or they no longer became investment opportunities because of a lot of different issues. We lost the capability there.

We have lost some of the capability right now for our forestry industry, as we have a lot of our industry co-owned between Canada and the United States. There does not even have to be collusion, there can just be a disinterest in competing against ourselves and lowering market prices because there is no real interest to do so.

Canada has had some of our natural resources purchased. I mentioned the mining industry to be prioritized because it goes to foreign markets for value-added manufacturing that the Prime Minister wants us to transition out of. That is unfortunate because the value-added economy of manufacturing is important today in this new age for innovation.

When we are looking at solar, wind, alternative energy and also the innovation that is taking place, I often point to what is taking place in Detroit, basically two kilometres from where I am right now. It has billions of dollars going into new electric vehicles and manufacturing there and we do not have the same here. We have some piecemeal and some very important projects taking place that are exciting, but we do not have a national strategy and we do not have the same type of investment taking place. In fact, in Detroit there was over $12 billion of investment in the last number of years and for all of the Canada in the last five or six years, we were at around $6 billion, which is basically not in the game any more with respect to where we should be.

This report did get a response from the minister. There have been some modest improvements to the bill and there has been some strengthening related to national security review, but they did not make some of the bigger changes that we had asked for. I had done some work with Unite, a labour union in British Columbia. It represented a number of companies that had basically been taken over by the Chinese state. I will not get into the full details, but I am going to read this recommendation that has not been implemented:

That the government of Canada immediately introduce legislation amending the Investment Canada Act to allow for the establishment of a privacy protection review of and the ability to enforce Canadians’ privacy and digital rights in any ICA approved acquisition, merger, or investment.

That is the one that I want to talk about. The one that did get pushed through, which I am pleased about, also allows for divestment issues to take place and the minister did move on that. That is important.

I want to pivot because we are looking at some of our privacy laws right now and people need to be aware that we have a Privacy Commissioner in Canada. The United States does not have that; other places do not have privacy. Our privacy laws affect everything from our capability to be involved as a citizen and our own personal life, but also our businesses, and our ability to share information, to work collaboratively and to be connected in terms of mergers and so forth in a more modest way.

We have asked for this to be part of the actual law, because with those expectations we can keep data and information under a review process. I will give a specific example of the Canada census, which I had worked on, to show the vulnerabilities.

It is ironic, because the census is taking place right now, and I encourage everybody to sign up for it. My riding, for a lot of different reasons, has one of the lower rates of compliance, which needs to be improved. Often it is because of language, but there are other reasons as well. However, it is important to fill out the census for government supports and services, and a whole series of things.

At any rate, at the time, our census was actually outsourced to Lockheed Martin. It may sound bizarre to some people that an arms manufacturer would actually get hold of our Canada census, but it did. It had won the contract, and it did that in a number of places. However, because of the Patriot Act, it was going to assemble our data in the United States. It would have allowed all of our census information to be vulnerable to the Patriot Act.

The way the Patriot Act works in the United States is that we would not have control over our data. The U.S. can access that data and then the company that is actually giving it up through the act is not even allowed to report it to us. The act is a fallout from 9/11, when a series of laws were put in place.

The data was going to be moved from Canada, but we fought hard, and we were able to get the data to stay in Canada and actually be processed here, protecting the data from that.

Ironically, Lockheed Martin is no longer doing our census. It was one of those things where we outsourced to be “efficient”, but it turned out to be a loss, because we had to actually pay more money. On top of that, the company is no longer around, and we are back to where we started from, and so that shortcut did not work.

I really believe that there should be a privacy screen as part of takeovers. When we look at the complications that Facebook and other companies have had with some of the privacy breaches, even being held hostage, it is important to note that we are very vulnerable, but we still do not have laws to protect companies.

The University of Calgary had a security breach and actually paid money to have its privacy protected. We do not even have a sense of the entire situation right now, because a number of companies have compromised privacy. They make payouts and different types of restitution, but they do not have to make it public. Some of it does go public but some of it does not; it just depends upon the situation.

When we look at foreign takeovers and the Investment Canada Act, I would point to a few takeovers that have really affected people in their day-to-day lives.

My colleague raised Lowe's and Rona, and I thank him for that, but it is a great example of the consequences, because we have lost competition there. We basically had two competing companies that have been erased off the chessboard, so to speak. Now we are very vulnerable, and there is no motivation to compete. In fact, not only is there less competition, it has made housing more difficult, fixing up our properties more difficult and small businesses are more dependent upon one provider. It has had significant economic consequences.

I opposed that merger and appealed to the government to stop it, but the government refused. I think the parties signed a side agreement to maybe keep their headquarters here and that is about it. However, eventually the stores closed, and I cannot think of a worse situation that we have right now, because we are now dependent upon a one-source provider. We have lost those jobs, but more importantly, the competition.

Another example, which may seem less significant but true, is when Future Shop was taken over by Best Buy. Again, how did that benefit consumers? We lost another competitor, the Canadian franchise company of Future Shop, and for electronics, we are made very vulnerable to being one-source supplied. We have lost that competitive element.

One of the worst examples ever is Zellers being bought out by Target. Here we had Zellers making a profit during a time when chain retail was having difficulty. It had a union, wages just above minimum wage and benefits. Then Target came in, bought up Zellers and promptly shut the stores down in a failed operation. The jobs were lost, the workers lost their benefits, and we lost competition, and for nothing. We had a phony U.S. chain come in here and basically do a social experiment. We lost a significant part of our retail market economy. We have not recovered from that in many respects, because we do not have that type of competition any more.

I think about London, Ontario, where Caterpillar took over Electro-Motive. That was an important one, because those were good manufacturing jobs. That was about union busting and driving out competition.

One of the more iconic ones was when Stelco was taken over by U.S. Steel in Hamilton. We still are feeling the repercussions of that. We lost production capacity, which was an important part of our long-term history of manufacturing steel in the Hamilton region. An exceptional skilled-labour workforce was thrown out because U.S. Steel wanted to wind down operations.

I do not think we are going to continue having the type of situation we are seeing at the moment because of COVID. However, we have a lot of situations with smaller companies. There can be a better way.

I do not want this to be a negative speech because it is about raising awareness. There have been some wonderful cases where we have fought back and we have seen Canadian companies remain. I would point to the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. In 2004, the Australian company BHP Billiton was trying to take over the Potash Corporation. We fought that and were successful.

The second example I can think of is MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates and Canadian space and satellite technology. We were able to prevent some of that takeover, and some of that is Canadian innovation.

I want to touch on something that is often forgotten. When we look at some of the tax on research and development, and incentives such as SR&ED credits and a whole series of others, we have to remember that as we are building up some of these companies, and providing subsidies for them to do research and development, we should have an obligation to stay Canadian and so should they. That is one of the things that we have to recognize. When we are giving incentives, whether they are direct or indirect subsidies, there is an obligation and an investment by the Canadian public. Therefore, if we were going to have a so-called free-market economy, where we get government out of the way, we would not be doing tax credits or subsidies for a whole series of things. We choose them as a democracy and as an innovative society to make advancements. If we do not actually get the fruits of those investments, they do not make any sense at the end of the day.

We have talked a bit about thresholds, but we are not seeing the action that we need to. We have much more work to do on this, and so much awareness is necessary. It is a very complicated file, but there is no doubt that it is sometimes captured in some of the iconic companies in the bigger acquisitions that take place. Let us not forget the small and medium-sized businesses that fly under the radar and under the requirements for review, that we just get notifications that we are losing. That is a poor choice for a country, especially if we are trying to build up our small and medium-sized businesses. We need to protect those assets and develop them better.

I will conclude my speech by again thanking the staff and the analysts for all the work that went behind this report. I know that some have diminished the importance of this debate for different reasons in the House of Commons, but I appreciate it because it has been important. At least we have it on the record, and I know that the House of Commons worked really hard to present issues in front of the government and the minister, as food for thought and also for making a difference.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West who is the dean of the industry committee. We always learn a lot by listening to him. I believe at our last meeting, we had Dan McTeague lamenting the lost Liberal legacy as far as industry and business are concerned.

I would like to ask the member if he could comment on the expert testimony that we have seen. Although he did not mention it in his speech, could the member comment on one of the recommendations, and the discussion that we had, where the Liberals felt there was no need to compel the minister to consult with our security agencies during a national security review? In the past, the minister actually did not consult with CSIS or RCMP while doing these reviews. Most experts we heard said the minister does not normally even bother consulting with them.

Is it a good idea to leave it as it is, with so much discretion of the minister?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:30 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to serve with my colleague a couple of times at committee and it has always been very positive. I am glad he raised this question. Although I did have it circled at one point, I did not mention it. The recommendation states:

That the Government of Canada immediately introduce legislation amending the Investment Canada Act to compel the Minister to consult with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Security Establishment in the national security process.

The member brought up a really good point that this would mandate it and ensure that it would get done, as it has not always been done. He made an excellent point that it is about best practices and good practices, ensuring everything is thorough and consistent. The most important thing about the Investment Canada Act, especially when it comes under the scrutiny and fairness review, is that this consistency should be there. I know he had raised this and had been a champion of it. It has been a missed opportunity, because some of it gets done, but not all of it. It is not consistent. That would bring some solid resolution to even the challenge of a decision under the Investment Canada Act.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:30 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

My colleague from Windsor West struck a nerve when he mentioned Falconbridge in his speech. I am from Rouyn-Noranda in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Noranda was the name of the mining company that founded the city. Noranda became Falconbridge in 2005, if I recall correctly, and then was acquired by Xstrata. It went from being a Canadian company to being an Anglo-Swiss company.

Naturally, this has consequences. Noranda has such a rich history, especially in terms of union activity. My colleague will be pleased to learn that that is where the union movement came into its own in Quebec. Of lesser interest, it is also there that canisters of tear gas were thrown for the first time, according to Richard Desjardins. Richard may well be the most famous Quebecker born in Rouyn-Noranda.

My colleague will also be pleased to learn that a very famous citizen of Rouyn Noranda, Dave Keon, from Noranda, managed to pull off the not insignificant feat of winning the Stanley Cup for Toronto. This little guy from back home was the last Toronto Maple Leaf player to win the Conn Smythe trophy.

All joking aside, I would like my colleague to tell us about the importance of owning our own businesses. When talking about strategic and precious metals such as copper, gold, cobalt—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Windsor West.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:30 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, that was exciting to hear. I did not realize that about Dave Keon. He was an awesome hockey player and goalie. People fear players like him.

That is a point well taken and it is interesting. The riding I represent had the Ford sit-down strike. The Rand Formula eventually came out of there and so forth. It is part of our DNA. I would like to thank the member for that. We can see by this discussion that there is a sense of pride that goes deeper with ownership, heritage and a connection to the community. I do not think we want to lose sight of that. A lot of people forget that about building our businesses. There is nothing wrong with showing that interest.

The unions and the people, the men and women working at a company, want it to do just as well. The issues around safety, fair compensation and so forth are there, but they want it to be successful and to wear the signature of their company with pride, just as much as anybody else.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, as someone who was not part of the committee, but had an opportunity to read through the report, it was eye opening and helped me to understand the environment in which our companies now are made vulnerable because of the COVID pandemic.

I would ask the member to comment, to loop back to his earlier comments in his speech, about the circumstance that provided the genesis for this report. This report was brought about because of the COVID pandemic, and the vulnerability that Canadian companies now have to takeovers and investments that may not serve the public interest well. I would encourage the member to perhaps share some further thoughts on how important it was for that study to take place.

This is not a trite study, as our Liberal colleagues have suggested. They would rather debate the Elections Act, which would help them go into an election in the fall, but I want the member to comment on why the study even took place and how it has helped us understand why Canadian companies need to be protected under an investment Canada regime.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank that member for Abbotsford for his question. As a former minister, he has experience dealing internationally with a number of different matters.

What has changed significantly is the vulnerability in the financial capabilities of some companies right now. In some sectors, like the mould-makers sector I represent, companies would traditionally, if they had a hard time transitioning, find new ownership. If somebody was looking to retire or take the next step, their company might be sold outright. Now we have questions about companies that are doing well and building up but that do not have the equity to continue. They could be bought in a fire sale. That is the concern.

There has been a lot of support to try to deal with the solvency issues taking place, but at the same time, there are so many mid-range companies that could be vulnerable. It has taken so much work for them to build up, and the innovation that is taking place with some of them is incredible. We do not want to lose them, but that is taking place. Under COVID-19, they are even more vulnerable.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, as I was reading this report, I noted the tremendous amount of work the committee put into it. However, it was unusual to have a dissenting opinion from the government and the other two opposition parties.

I would ask the member to expand on some of the specific concerns that are raised about smaller companies, not necessarily the big companies that often make headlines. The report specifically mentioned, although I forget the quote exactly, a particular expert who said there is more concern about a company valued at around $10 million in a specific sector like health or technology than about a $100-million company in a more traditional sector.

I wonder if the member has further comments on that.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is very correct, and that is the vulnerability we see in some of these companies.

Jim Balsillie talked about some of the vulnerable tech we have, as did a series of other witnesses. This is where we have some innovation and breakthroughs that are very unique, especially in the digital economy, which is still emerging. Canada is competing quite well in some aspects of it, but we are not giving the proper supports for it to expand. That is a whole other separate conversation, but we do have some exciting opportunities.

For example, I mentioned mould-makers earlier in this area. When we had trouble with the auto industry, we helped them diversify into aerospace, medical devices and a series of different things. We have some exciting companies and opportunities, but they are vulnerable right now and will be in the immediate future. That is where thresholds will not provide a proper review and a takeover is going to happen, fait accompli, and that is really against the public interest.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:35 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I promise I will not talk about hockey players.

My question is simple. What does the member for Windsor West think of the Liberal Party's dissenting opinion, which does not support the report that I feel was the product of consensus?

How does he interpret the Liberals' position on that?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was interesting that the parliamentary secretary said to the Prime Minister that he supported a recommendation that was directly quoted in the Liberal dissenting opinion. Then he said he supported the rest of the report. They have some sorting out to do, I think. I asked the member about this specifically, to give him a chance. Later on, he mentioned that I should read the report.

At any rate, I do not really know where the Liberals are on this, but I can tell members that I think the report overall is a very solid document to read over, and I appreciated being part of it.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Carleton's earlier observations about foreign investment in Canada. The issues raised in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology's report on the Investment Canada Act are important ones.

Canada must attract foreign investment that is beneficial to Canada while protecting this country's interests, which include national security. That is what the government is working on in accordance with the general provisions of the Investment Canada Act, in co-operation with Canada's security organizations and economic departments and by reviewing our policy directions.

These are national security guidelines, which were recently strengthened with added emphasis on important review factors, such as transfer of and access to sensitive technology, potential impacts of investment on critical minerals and how a given investment might provide access to sensitive private information held by Canadian companies.

Under the Investment Canada Act, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry must consult the Minister of Public Safety and get their recommendation on national security reviews. That process includes consulting all relevant investigative bodies—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:40 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am so sorry, but the interpretation is not working. I really want to hear my colleague from Saint-Laurent especially because we are finally going to get a Liberal opinion. I would really like to be able to hear her.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We will check if the interpretation is working.

It is working now. I appreciate the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue pointing it out.

We will go back to the hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what he might have missed.

Under the Investment Canada Act, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry must consult the Minister of Public Safety and get their recommendation on national security reviews. That process includes consulting all relevant investigative bodies.

The standing committee report itself notes that as soon as an investment raises a national security concern, Public Safety Canada coordinates a review process involving 18 different federal departments and agencies, including CSIS, the Communications Security Establishment, the Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Global Affairs Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Public Health Agency and the Department of Finance.

Public Safety noted that this whole-of-government approach brings the relevant expertise to bear as we assess the national security risks of each transaction.

The government is in favour of foreign investment, but not to the detriment of national security.

The Investment Canada Act is the government's primary legislative measure for reviewing foreign investment in Canada. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has to review and approve major foreign investment based on likely net benefit before it can proceed. What is more, every foreign investment, no matter its value and country of origin, is subject to review under the Investment Canada Act's national security review process.

When an investment is subject to the Investment Canada Act, investors have to provide important detailed information. They are required to provide information on every source of funding of the investment and details on the investor's plan for the acquired Canadian company. This information is necessary to allow a thorough review of the investment based on its likely net economic benefit for Canada and whether it could be injurious to Canada's national security. This information is protected by the robust confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act.

For each net benefit review, the minister must consider six factors that are expressly stated in the act. These are, among others, the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including the effect on employment, and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets. An investment is only approved if the minister is convinced that it will constitute a global economic advantage for Canada. Each decision is based on a thorough, rigorous review and on the careful review of the investment's potential economic impact.

The national security review process described in the act is just as thorough. This process takes into consideration the nature of the goods involved, including intangible property, as much as it does commercial activities targeted by the investments or the stakeholders involved. Relevant information on each investment is provided to the department and to security agencies, including Public Safety Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, so they can review the information concerning the investment. These organizations can consult Canada's allies to determine if the investment could be injurious to national security or if an order needs to be issued to address national security concerns.

I know that I only have a limited amount of time, but it is also important to point out that the act takes into account the fact that investments made by foreign state-owned enterprises can be motivated by non-commercial imperatives that could harm Canada's economic or national security interests.

The provisions of the act demonstrate the special attention that is paid to state-owned enterprise investment. That includes a threshold [technical difficulties] for net benefit reviews and state-owned enterprise guidelines. The COVID-19 policy statement and the national security guidelines [technical difficulties] all of these measures related to state-owned enterprises.

It is not just all foreign investments by state-owned investors that are subject to more scrutiny, but also private investors assessed as being closely tied to or subject to direction from foreign governments.

Under the Investment Canada Act, the government already has among the broadest foreign investment review powers in the world. Through existing authorities we can address problematic investments that threaten Canada's national security, while remaining open to most foreign investment. The vast majority of foreign investments in Canada pose no national security risk.

The government continues to engage with our allies, including members of the Five Eyes, on foreign investment issues. The Investment Canada Act is not the only tool that the government uses to protect against national security concerns arising from economic activity.

The standing committee's report raised important points regarding foreign investments, state-owned enterprises and the safeguarding of Canada's national security interests. Whether it be a net benefit or national security review, the reviews conducted under the Investment Canada Act are always very thorough and comprehensive.

I would also like to once again point out the government's commitment to examining investments under the act in terms of their benefit for Canada and Canadians. Pursuant to the Investment Canada Act, the government will continue to ensure that Canada's economic interests are taken into account during the review of foreign investments in Canada.

Across a range of economic-based threats to national security, through budget 2019 our government committed almost $14 million per year on an ongoing basis, which has helped reinforce Canada's robust approach to address national security threats to the economy.

What is more, the government has never and will never compromise Canada's national security, as demonstrated by its excellent track record on that front.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

8:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech and for digging into this report and study. Earlier tonight her colleague, the parliamentary secretary, suggested that the government actually supports the recommendations of the committee contained in that report.

Can she confirm whether the government supports the main recommendations of the committee in that report?