Debates of Feb. 8th, 2023

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his important work on this file.

As I mentioned, it is not the first time we have updated the Investment Canada Act. We have taken a number of actions to ensure that we have the right tools and flexibility to protect Canada's national security interests. Assuming the bill passes seconding reading in this House, it will go to committee, and there will be many opportunities there for us to have a debate and talk about what additional elements we might want to see in it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

We are here today to talk about Bill C‑34. To date, there has been a great deal of discussion about national security, which is the main part of the bill. This bill seeks to reinforce the powers the minister has to take action to protect national security. This is not a bad thing; it is even a very good thing, but decidedly, it does not go far enough.

I also want to talk about one of my concerns relating to another aspect of the Investment Canada Act, which, unfortunately, the bill under consideration does not address.

In fact, there are a number of things in the Investment Canada Act. First, people abroad who want, for example, to purchase a company, invest in a mine, start a research firm or make any significant investment whatsoever have to fill out a form and give notice of their investment indicating their intention.

Then, the federal government must determine whether it wants to review the actual investment. It can review it based on national security criteria, which is what this bill is about. The bill seeks to give the minister more power and to tighten the review criteria.

The other review criterion has to do with the net benefit for Canada. That is something that is a little more vague and that is not very clearly defined. I would even go so far as to say that there is not much on the subject in the current act. That gives the minister a lot of latitude in determining what constitutes a net benefit for Canada. In some unforeseen circumstances, it might be good for the minister to have the latitude to use their judgment. However, it would be good to have a bit more accountability and proactivity on the part of the government with regard to the use of the act.

I would like to talk about where the review threshold was when I was first elected in 2015. I would note that the minister is not obligated to conduct a review. Reviews are mandatory only beyond a certain threshold. When I was elected in 2015, the review threshold was $369 million. What is it now? Better be sitting down for this. It has been indexed, but let us just say it is indexing on steroids. Today, in 2023, the threshold ranges from $1.3 billion to $1.9 billion. That means not all transactions go through a net benefit review if they are below that threshold.

The $1.3-billion threshold is for businesses with which Canada does not have a trade agreement, while the $1.9-billion threshold is for those with which it has agreements, such as the U.K., the U.S., the EU and so on.

This means that some Quebec companies are not protected by the current review threshold. These companies are very important to Quebec's economy, which is very different from Canada's economy. The Canadian economy relies heavily on subsidiaries of U.S. companies, but Quebec's economy is more about small and medium-sized businesses. Slowly but surely, some small businesses grow by dint of hard work and even end up getting listed on the stock exchange.

Some of these major Quebec corporations that are publicly traded and are not protected under the current review threshold include Héroux-Devtek, which has a market value of $560 million, Lassonde Industries, which has a market value of $805 million, Cascades, which has a market value of $909 million, TC Transcontinental, which has a market value of $1.3 billion, and Resolute Forest Products, which has a market value of $1.6 billion.

All of these companies could disappear overnight. Any big shot from the U.S. or any other country on the planet could come in and take them over. The minister would not even look at it. It would be rubber-stamped. Thank you, good night, goodbye to that company. These are major, strategic corporations in terms of Quebec's national interest, and the federal government will not even look at them. It could not be bothered to take the time to analyze the transaction. It is unbelievable.

Worse, in some situations, a review is conducted, but it is not always very rigorous. Let me give an example. My riding was home to a company called Rona. Everyone in Quebec knows Rona. It is a major hardware store that sells all the building materials used in homes. In 2016, the company was sold for $3.2 billion to the American company Lowe's, a company in the same sector.

What happened? A review was supposed to take place because, at that time, the threshold was set at $369 million and it was exceeded. However, immediately after the transaction, some potential wrongdoing came to light. The former board of directors was fired, as was its president, Robert Dutton. Complicit in this was the president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, who allegedly planned his exit in order to facilitate the sale of Rona, since it was blocked the first time around, in 2012. This former president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is now working for the Liberals. His name is Michael Sabia.

What is interesting is that when we learned about this, we immediately wrote to Minister Bains. We asked him to take a look at what was happening before authorizing the transaction. We just wanted to put it on hold to see if it was a good idea for Quebec or not. What happened? The minister rubber-stamped it. He did not ask any questions. Before we knew it, the company was gone. That is sad. The company was re-sold for $400 million U.S. when it was originally purchased for $3.2 billion. That loss of value signals an abysmal failure. It was sold for a pittance to another U.S. company after Lowe's fell flat on its face in Quebec.

Well, after the minister approved the transaction, we wondered why he made that decision and what his thought process was. There should have been a net benefit to Canada review. We submitted an ATIP request to see what documents and analyses helped the minister make his decision. The answer we got was surreal. Here is what it said: We carried out a comprehensive search and regret to inform you that we found no documents corresponding to your request.

There are no documents. The minister referred to zero documents and zero analyses to make his decision about net benefit to Canada. That is what passes for rigorous analysis by the Liberals for a company worth $3.2 billion, a massive company of strategic value to Quebec. What do people buy at hardware stores? They buy building materials. Building materials are made from raw materials. What do we produce here? We produce wood, nails, shovels and so on. The products that end up on the shelves in those stores are products we make in Quebec.

What happens when a foreign company buys that company? The foreign company has its own suppliers already. For example, an American company will use American suppliers because it already does business with them. Quebec suppliers get kicked to the curb. That is what happened, unfortunately. Many Quebec suppliers lost their orders.

Now Rona will have a second chance with its new owner. We hope things will improve, but it is sad. What happened was the Liberals could not be bothered to review the transaction to see whether it was beneficial or whether it was even over the threshold. That is a big problem. I find that really odd. When a company comes here from overseas and takes a heavy-handed approach, often our first instinct is to assume that they are much better than us, that they are much bigger and therefore unbeatable. We think we have no choice but to sell, so we immediately roll over.

Companies like Target come to mind. When Target came along, the owners of Zellers sold all their stores. It was a fire sale. Run for your lives. Target was going to come in and kill everyone. What happened to Target? It did not last a year before it shut down. Another example is Provigo. Provigo was a Quebec company, a large grocery store chain that created competition. Now we have Loblaws, which exists in the market and is up against Metro, but there used to be other players, too. Unfortunately, when Provigo disappeared, there was less competition, which resulted in higher prices in grocery stores. Today, there are no longer any Loblaws grocery stores in Quebec. Loblaws put the Provigo signs back up. They realized that the Loblaws stores were not working.

Just because a foreign company comes here does not mean that it will succeed. We too have good, solid companies. We should be proud of them. We should ask questions before rubber-stamping any old transaction. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not understand that. There was an opportunity with Bill C‑34 to do more to defend our companies, and it did not do so. I am really disappointed.

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, what I see is a modernization that would in essence enable the ministers to continue what I believe is a healthy history. Canada has been perceived as, and has been in real terms, an attraction or magnet for foreign investment. What we are talking about here is ensuring there is more transparency and accountability and the ability to protect and provide security in a better way going forward.

The principles of the legislation are worthy of supporting, no matter what side of the House one comes from. I wonder if the member from the Bloc would concur that, at the very least, this legislation should be going to committee. Hopefully it happens relatively soon.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is pretty much telling us that they are going to modernize Bill C-34, that it is a good thing and that we should be pleased.

I am pleased that Bill C‑34 will be updated somewhat; what is sad is that that requires rigour. The problem is that there is no rigour.

Is there a way to come up with a more rigorous bill, one that would require rigour? That is what I would find more interesting and make me happier.

Let us look at an example. In 2021-22, there were 1,255 notices of foreign investment. That is a lot. How many were examined? How many were reviewed?

Not even 1% of investments were reviewed. That is absolutely crazy, but that is what the government considers to be rigorous. It approves everything and has lost control.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech very interesting, particularly with regard to whether there are any documents to support the minister's decision on the acquisition laws.

In the last Parliament, recommendation number one of the unanimous report by the industry committee was that a state-owned enterprise's financial ceiling for review by the government be lowered from $415 million, from a hostile country like China, to zero. This bill, Bill C-34, does not propose any changes to that limit, which means that state-owned enterprises can buy up anything they like in this country under $415 million.

I would like the member's views on whether he would like to see amendments to this bill in that area.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with what the Conservative member said.

It does not make any sense for an enterprise owned by foreign interests, not just private interests, but state-owned foreign interests, to be able to buy anything under the threshold he mentioned without any oversight. The government is not even bothering to look at whether it is a good thing or not. A review should be automatic when a state-owned enterprise buys a company here.

That does not mean blocking the transaction. The idea is not to block every purchase that might happen here. The same goes for private interests. The idea is for the government to at least review the purchase and ask questions rather than just letting everything go forward. Right now, the government is sticking its head in the sand and not seeing what is happening. It is blind.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government allowed a Chinese insurance giant and bank to take over operations of seniors' living facilities. This company was then seized by the Chinese government, which now holds a 98% ownership stake. There are no provisions in the Investment Canada Act that allow for a review of subsequent acquisitions by state-owned companies.

Does the member support closing this loophole?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously I agree with my NDP colleague, who raises a really good point.

I would add one thing: out of sight, out of mind. That is true in general. It means that the more distanced the executives are from the company's operations, the less interested they are in the company's well-being and results. It means that the further away the owner of a company is geographically from what is happening here, the less accountability there is and the less likely the company owner is to take our national interests into account in their daily business decisions.

That is something the government needs to keep in mind when deciding whether to authorize transactions.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, has good intentions. It seeks to improve controls and give the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry more authority over foreign investments in Canada. The Bloc Québécois fully supports this commitment to better protecting the economy of Quebec and Canada from foreign interests that may be harmful to us.

The new review process is essentially the same as the one used in the United States. Adopting it increases the chances that the U.S. will continue to see us as a reliable partner. That is a condition for being a preferred supplier that is well integrated into their supply chains. At a time when protectionism is on the rise among our neighbours to the south, a trend that could seriously disrupt our economy, that is an important asset, and the Bloc Québécois applauds it.

Bill C‑34 is in addition to the new critical minerals guidelines that the government adopted in October 2022, and that apply to 31 minerals that are critical for the long-term economic prosperity of Canada and its allies. Bill C‑34 and Canada's new critical minerals strategy should help stop Chinese companies, among others, from taking over our resources.

All these developments are positive, but they are only half-measures. That is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in controlling foreign investments in general. The bill under consideration is limited to investments affecting national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, so focusing on it is justified. However, it represents only a small fraction of all foreign investments made in Canada. It is clear that the safety net provided for in the new system created by these proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act is inadequate.

Here are some figures. Of the 1,255 investment projects filed last year, under the new rules being proposed in Bill C‑34, only 24 would be subject to review. Clearly, this is like a grain of sand on a beach. This bill would affect only 2% of all investment projects filed last year. The other 1,221 projects from last year would remain subject to the new rules. Those rules provide for a review to determine whether a project will truly provide a net economic benefit to Canada.

There are six criteria then used to assess whether a transaction is beneficial. That said, I would draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that a review is only triggered when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères explained.

That is where the problem lies. Over the years, the threshold at which the government must assess whether an investment is economically beneficial has been significantly increased. It has more than tripled in the last 10 years. At the same time, the number of investment projects is increasing every year, and that must be taken into consideration.

The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review. Last year, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. That is less than 1%.

The member for Winnipeg North says that the law is being amended, so it must be good. The Liberals have created a bill that does not affect even 1% of the projects. That is not very ambitious. It reminds me of yesterday's smoke show on health transfers.

The review rate was 10% as recently as about 10 years ago, in 2009. In reality, this measure has become essentially ineffective over time. It might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. The situation is such that foreign investments are rubber-stamped without analysis, save for exceptional cases. Understandably, less than 1% certainly qualifies as exceptional.

Everyone knows how much I love history, how passionate I am about it, and I believe that building our future depends on having a good understanding of the past so we can learn from our successes and avoid repeating mistakes. I would like to share some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.

Since the Quiet Revolution, the Government of Quebec has established some important economic and financial levers. These tools enable it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism designed to give Quebeckers more control over their economy. That does not mean Quebec is not open to foreign investment. We are open to it because it can drive growth and development. However, we believe the priority is supporting our own businesses to help them grow so we can protect the significant decision-making power of our own corporate headquarters.

In 1988, former Parti Québécois premier Bernard Landry lobbied for the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, which was signed with the U.S. and Mexico in the early 1990s. Quebec's strategy worked. Quebec's decision to invest in its businesses paid off, and many flagship companies headquartered on Quebec soil grew.

As the figures show, the presence of head offices is important. There are currently close to 578 head offices in Quebec. This represents approximately 50,000 jobs that pay twice as much as the Quebec average. On top of that, head offices provide nearly 20,000 other jobs for specialized suppliers such as accounting, legal, financial and computer firms, and so on. Structurally, companies headquartered in Quebec also tend to favour procurement from local suppliers, which creates a positive economic circle. Finally, companies tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their head office is located.

As the Bloc Québécois science and innovation critic, I have to emphasize how important this characteristic is, since Canada ranks last in the G7 when it comes to corporate investments in research and development. This statistic can probably be traced to the fact that the Canadian economy has always been recognized as a subsidiary economy. One might think of the automotive sector, with Ford Canada and GM Canada, or the oil sector, with the Shell Canadas and the Imperial Oils of the world.

There is no shortage of examples of the harmful effects that ill-advised foreign investments can have on our economy and even our prosperity. Here are just a few.

First, there is the loss of decision-making powers and head offices, which condemns us to being a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Second, there is the weakening of Montreal's financial sector as a global finance hub. Third, there is the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers and supply chains that are more fragile than ever. We saw that during difficult times, such as the COVID‑19 pandemic. Fourth, there is the possible land grab by rich foreigners who do not care about our social and economic priorities. That is a concrete example. Fifth, there is the loss of control over our natural resources, which are our country's greatest asset.

By focusing exclusively on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. I want to reiterate that we invite the government to amend its bill to make it much more bold and ambitious and to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act and not just the part on national security.

As always, the Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such it is recommending three types of amendments. The first is to lower the review threshold to prevent most foreign investments from being approved without review. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents.

I hope the government will listen to our practical proposals and modernize this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged that, toward the tail end, the member referred to the idea that there could be room for improving the legislation. This is a reason that I am hopeful the member would share those thoughts with the minister. Let us ultimately see the legislation go to committee.

At the beginning of his speech, the member referred to this whole one per cent factor. We also need to recognize that some industries need more attention than others. Information technology is an example of this, and I think that is another area that the committee could be looking at.

Could the member provide some additional thoughts in regard to those industries he would think offhand, and I do not expect a list, that there should be more attention given to?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for that good question. I like these concise questions that are on topic and are neither provocative nor arrogant.

To answer my colleague's question, there are indeed several sectors. I am thinking about the biopharmaceutical sector in particular.

In the early 2000s, there were a lot of pharmaceutical companies in Canada, primarily in Quebec. They are all gone now because of the underinvestment in research and development and the underinvestment in programs to develop them.

I think that we need to focus on our own expertise and protect what we have. We are in a globalized economy, and competition is fierce. I encourage my colleague from Winnipeg North to realize that Canada is the only G7 country that cut its investments in research and development. That is too bad. As I said, Canada is the only G7 country that is still unable to stimulate the private enterprise economy.

There is a parallel to be drawn. As I explained very clearly in my speech, when we have fewer head offices, we have fewer means of intervention. This creates jobs in parallel, including with partners in nearby supply chains. Understand this: If we allow others to make decisions for us, people overseas will not take us into consideration as much.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Winnipeg North, I will add food as one of the industries that should be on the list.

However, my question is around the issue of assets. The Investment Canada Act focuses on companies, but more and more, we are seeing Canadian companies selling their strategic assets, sometimes to countries that are not favourable to us. A company could remain Canadian but sell off a mine; a technology; or in our intangible asset world, even data.

Could the member speak to the issue that, if the bill goes to committee, which I believe it will, we should be looking at it in terms of the areas of assets in addition to just companies?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques to please answer briefly because we have to get to the next question.

The hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting subject. We have to avoid the intellectual shortcuts that people sometimes take in the House.

I sure appreciate the opportunity my colleague gave me. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères gave us a very good example. Rona was purchased by foreign interests, a company called Lowe's, not to name names. It was then resold for a pittance. The company the government had invested in was originally valued at over $3 billion, but it was sold for $400 million.

Our constituents are watching us. They placed their trust in us, and they want us to manage their investment with great care. In this case, it was a total failure.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course, coming from British Columbia, my concern is that we saw a Chinese company come in and buy a lot of seniors' homes. When I look at the piece of legislation, there is still a significant loophole. If something were taken over by the Government of China, as it was before, there would be no process for investment Canada or the minister to be able to review the next acquisition.

Is this something the member would support the NDP to look at in the committee?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I touched on this subject briefly in my speech. People with foreign interests or economic interests coming to invest here do not always have our social investments at heart.

She mentioned seniors' homes. I fully agree that we need to pay close attention in modernizing the bill, and we must consider that the interests of foreign investors will not always align with ours.

She makes an interesting point. I gave the example of land grabs. Everyone here needs to eat, just like the general population. It is the same thing. The Bloc Québécois will certainly be able to work with my colleague.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Today, our government is proposing important amendments to modernize this legislation. We will never hesitate to act swiftly and decisively when there is a threat to our national security, and these amendments are at the heart of that effort.

The purpose of this bill is to modernize the Investment Canada Act. The proposed amendments will help make Canada more agile in addressing any threats that may arise from foreign investment, thereby maintaining Canada's position as a top destination for doing business.

Today I want to talk specifically about increasing foreign investment across the entire economy and in certain key sectors of Canada's economy over the past few years. More than ever, we know and recognize the importance of ensuring that we are doing everything we can to promote and foster a strong, innovative green economy. A clear and predictable regulatory regime in Canada is essential for businesses and investors.

As we know, Canada is one of the best places in the world to do business. Businesses that invest here benefit from favourable economic conditions, a stable political climate, safe infrastructure and an innovation-friendly environment. Canada's advantageous position makes companies that do business here more competitive and increases prosperity for all Canadians.

Over the past few years, more and more foreign investors have chosen Canada for its business-friendly environment. The flow of foreign direct investment in Canada has nearly doubled over the past five years.

I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague and esteemed friend from Halifax.

According to the United Nations, in 2021, Canada had the second-largest ratio of foreign direct investment stock to GDP among G20 countries. However, this increase in the volume of foreign investment also comes with certain risks. For example, the number of investments reviewed under the Investment Canada Act also doubled over the past five years. There are also more and more investments related to sensitive technologies, critical minerals and sensitive information.

It is also important to point out the recent increase in national security reviews under the Investment Canada Act. There have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in the previous 10 years. This upward trend is expected to continue, given that Canada is an attractive destination for foreign investors.

The reality is that today's geopolitical dynamic is evolving quickly. Hostile actors could seek to disrupt Canada's economic security through our open market economy. Threats to Canada are changing all the time, and the government must ensure that Canada's foreign investment review regime strikes a good balance between promoting foreign direct investment and protecting Canada's interests and security.

We are all proud that Canada is an open economy and a trading nation. Our country is one of the most attractive destinations for the foreign investments that are necessary to our economic prosperity. In order to ensure that Canada remains an attractive destination for foreign investment, we must have a clear and predictable regulatory regime. That is why this new bill, which modernizes Canada's foreign investment review regime by amending the Investment Canada Act, or ICA, is so important.

The amendments to the ICA will make the investment review process more effective and transparent, while ensuring that the interests and security of all Canadians are better protected. This new Bill C-34 represents the most significant update of the Investment Canada Act since 2009.

Together, these legislative amendments will help ensure that Canada is able to enjoy the economic benefits of foreign investments in all sectors, while strengthening its ability to act quickly and decisively to defend against threats to our national and economic security.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks is contained in this bill that would improve the government's performance from the last eight years and the issue of national security reviews of companies bought by Chinese state-owned enterprises in Canada.

Essentially, those powers would not be changing in this act, and the government continues to send notices to Chinese state-owned enterprises that they can buy our companies and our assets without any national security review.

What does the member see in the bill that would change that?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that the direction of the bill is so important. I have risen many times in the House to talk about corporate concentration and foreign ownership. Especially, when foreign owners attempt to purchase an asset in Canada, whether it is a holding company, an operating company or straight asset, and they are backed by, say, a fund that is backed by the government, we need to have the tools and resources to block those types of acquisitions.

If this is going on that track, the bill will hopefully be sent to committee for further studies, further recommendations and more in-depth questions.

I appreciate the hon. member's question. I share those concerns.

We need to make sure that we protect our assets and our companies from national security threats from wherever they may arise throughout the world.

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

Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the member across the way is an accountant by training. So am I, as it happens.

He has been an MP in the Liberal government for a few years now. If I am not mistaken, he, like me, was elected in 2015. In 2015, the net benefit review threshold was $369 million. Today, the threshold is $1.9 billion. There is quite a gap between $1.9 billion and $369 million. However, it was the member's government that raised the threshold year after year. In any case, it does not even review 1% of investments.

My question is the following. As an accountant, does he think that $1.9 billion is pocket change?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am actually an economist by training, but I have about half my accounting designation as well, along with my CFA charter. Therefore, I am well versed on the finance issues.

I will say that on any sort of net benefit test, the test should not be on the value of the transaction. It should actually be, in my opinion, on the strategic asset that is being looked at or being purchased by a foreign entity or an entity that we would consider injurious to Canada's national security interests and national economic interests.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, Chinese insurance agent giant Anbang took over B.C.-based Retirement Concepts, a Canadian company that operates senior living facilities.

At the time of acquisition, Anbang was a privately owned corporation. After a review by industry Canada, the takeover was approved, and relatively shortly afterwards, the company was seized by the Chinese government, which now holds 98% ownership. At present, there are no provisions in the ICA that would allow industry Canada or the minister to be able to review this subsequent acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of an ICA approved takeover or merger by a foreign private company.

Does the member opposite not think that this is an issue? Does he agree that amendments are required?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the care of our seniors in long-term care facilities throughout this country, whoever they may be owned by, is of paramount concern to me and the residents of my riding, as is making sure that we maintain that commitment and promise to take care of our seniors at whatever age they are, so they can have a secure and dignified retirement. That is a solemn promise I made to my constituents. We need to uphold that promise.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-34, legislation that represents the most significant update to the Investment Canada Act since 2009. In those 15 years, thanks to Canadian hard work and ingenuity and, for the last seven and a half years, a government that has been willing to invest in our future, Canada has become increasingly attractive to foreign investors who want what Canada has to offer, be that clean technologies, critical minerals, batteries or our skilled workforce.

I have the great pleasure of serving as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. In this role, I have seen first-hand how Canadian innovators are getting attention from investors around the world.

I also have the great privilege of being the member of Parliament for Halifax, and in the riding of Halifax we are proud to claim Dalhousie University professor Jeff Dahn as one of our own. Dr. Dahn is one of the world's leading researchers on lithium ion batteries, whose work has received significant industry investment, including from Tesla.

Nova Scotia is also home to Novonix, known for producing the best and most accurate lithium ion battery testing technology in the world. I was present at the grand opening of its new facility in Dartmouth just last November, which was made possible with help from our government.

Another Nova Scotia example, CarbonCure Technologies, is the winner of the 2021 Carbon XPrize. CarbonCure has gained international attention for its technology, which introduces recycled CO2 into concrete to drastically reduce its carbon footprint and make the concrete substantially stronger. Canada has much to offer in today's world as we together tackle issues of global concern.

There is, of course, another important asset this country has going for it as we seek to position Canada as an investment destination. That is the tireless Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry himself, who has been remarkably prolific and successful in the last several years in bringing together foreign investment into Canada. That is because our government understands that attracting investment to Canada means creating jobs for Canadians and growing the Canadian economy.

At the same time, we recognize that the evolving national security landscape means that Canada's approach to foreign investment must also evolve. To be sure, Canada must remain an open economy, but we cannot ignore that we are increasingly being targeted by hostile actors. This threatens not just our national security, but also our prosperity, and we must always remember that economic security is national security.

Over the last number of years, we have already undertaken a number of measures to modernize the Investment Canada Act, or ICA, by updating our policies to improve transparency and provide certainty to investors. For example, in 2021, we updated guidelines on the national security review of foreign investments. In 2022, in response to the unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, we set out a new policy on the review of foreign investments from Russia. We also introduced a voluntary filing mechanism for investors seeking regulatory certainty, triggering the same legal deadlines as a mandatory filing. That means investors can gain certainty about their plans while the government gains valuable insights into those plans ourselves. This past fall, we introduced a policy regarding foreign investment from state-owned enterprises in critical minerals under the ICA.

Bill C-34 is the next step forward. This legislation would protect the Canadian marketplace by evolving our tools to better defend against current and future threats. By equipping ourselves today for tomorrow's threats, Canada will remain a destination of choice for foreign investment.

With that framing, I would now like to touch on the amendments to the ICA that we are proposing, which all together would improve Canada's visibility into proposed investments, enhance transparency and investor confidence, and further empower Canada to act decisively on potential threats to our national security. There are seven proposed amendments to the ICA contained in Bill C-34.

The first is the introduction of a pre-implementation filing requirement for specified investments. This means that Canada would have oversight of investments made in certain sensitive business sectors, allowing a review of these transactions to be undertaken to prevent potential harm to our national security. This is a targeted approach designed to reduce unnecessary burden while bolstering transparency and certainty for investors.

The second amendment would introduce a new ministerial authority to order further national security reviews of investments. This means that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry would have the ability to order further reviews more efficiently, whereas previously a Governor in Council order was required.

The third amendment in Bill C-34 would increase penalties to strengthen deterrence. This means that penalties for non-compliance, which have not been updated in several decades, would reflect current financial realities, while also providing the authority to update penalties again as needed in the future.

The fourth would be the new authority provided to the Minister of Innovation, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on parties to an investment. This means that during the review itself, we would better protect against national security threats that could come from the transfer of assets, IP or trade secrets.

The fifth amendment would provide the minister with the authority to accept mitigation undertakings. This means there would be more flexibility to improve or amend mitigation agreements at the ministerial level, where again, previously, the very rigid Governor in Council order was necessary to impose conditions on transactions to mitigate risks.

The sixth amendment in Bill C-34 would improve information sharing with international counterparts. We know that in the evolving geopolitical landscape that we inhabit, our co-operation with international allies is important for our collective security. This amendment would mean smoother consultations with our international partners and would allow Canada to share case-specific information, where appropriate, to support national security assessments.

The seventh and final amendment in the bill would bring new rules to protect information in the course of judicial review proceedings. This means sensitive information could be used in these proceedings while protecting it from disclosure, allowing judges to consider this information as part of their deliberations while allowing the applicants to fully participate in the judicial review.

Canada has a global reputation as a welcoming investment destination and ranks second among G20 countries in foreign investment. This is good news. In fact, last year we celebrated a new all-time high in the total number of filings. It is a job well done by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. As a result of this success, Canada’s foreign investment regime must adapt to the speed of innovation.

Under the leadership of the minister and this government, Canada’s evolving policies and guidance have been addressing these developments as they arise, and we have taken clear and decisive action on transactions whenever necessary to protect Canada’s national security, but more must be done to ensure our ability to move quickly and decisively in the future. The guidance and decisions issued over the past several years make clear that some transactions, particularly those by state-owned or state-influenced investors, may be motivated by non-commercial imperatives that could harm Canada’s national security.

Ultimately, the volume and complexity of foreign investment reviews is increasing and this significant change provides a strong rationale for supporting ICA modernization. The time now is right to pursue modernization of the Investment Canada Act through Bill C-34 before the House today. Fundamentally, our government believes that an effective review regime must be robust, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world. We are making important moves now to review and modernize key aspects of the act, while ensuring that the overarching framework to support needed foreign investment to grow our economy remains strong and open.

Our record as a government makes it abundantly clear that where national security is concerned, we will not shy away from decisive action, and our assessment of risk keeps pace with evolving economic and geopolitical circumstances. While the ICA gives us much of the authorities we need to intercede and address national security risks that can arise in foreign investment, these amendments build on that strong foundation and improve the mechanics of the national security review of investments.

Taken together, these legislative amendments would ensure Canada is able to continue to gain the economic benefits of investments while strengthening our ability to address threats to our country and its future prosperity. For these reasons, I hope all members of the House will vote in favour of Bill C-34.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by my friend from Halifax, the parliamentary secretary, and it is interesting to note that the Minister of Industry did not do a security review on the purchase by Hytera, a state-owned enterprise of China, a telecommunications business. He did not do a security review of China's takeover of our only producing lithium mine. He did not do any security checks on the RCMP buying telecommunications equipment from a Chinese state-owned enterprise. This bill would remove the cabinet from any discussion and involvement in making those decisions at the beginning. Only at the end, and only if the minister decides to take it there, does this bill actually involve the cabinet.

When the Minister of Industry has made such poor decisions on our national security over the last eight years, why does the member think it would be great to remove the cabinet and just leave it up to a minister who clearly does not get it?