Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 786
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (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—
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-05-10 20:33 [p.7010]
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.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-05-10 20:34 [p.7010]
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.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-05-10 20:35 [p.7010]
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.
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
View Damien Kurek Profile
2021-05-10 20:36 [p.7010]
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.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-05-10 20:37 [p.7010]
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.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (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?
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-05-10 20:39 [p.7011]
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.
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
2021-05-10 20:39 [p.7011]
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—
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
2021-05-10 20:42 [p.7011]
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.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-05-10 20:49 [p.7012]
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?
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
2021-05-10 20:49 [p.7012]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not hear the comments made by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and so I cannot necessarily comment on what was said. However, being a member on the committee, I personally agreed with many of the recommendations put forward, as well as the dissenting report.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Laurent began by pointing out that the minister will examine the six factors as part of the process.
I would like her to comment on transparency. Does she think it is important in a democracy that people know the conditions being imposed on our businesses if they come under foreign ownership? Is it important for people to know what the minister has negotiated, what he has given up, to ensure that jobs are protected and that our suppliers are entitled to services? Is transparency important in a democracy?
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
2021-05-10 20:50 [p.7012]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I would say it depends on the negotiations and what is being talked about. I think in many cases the key element is confidentiality. Consider the example of the vaccine contracts that we just had. Everything had to be kept confidential or we were not necessarily going to get the doses of vaccine that we needed for Canadians. I am giving this as a simple example, because it always depends on the type of negotiation.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-05-10 20:51 [p.7012]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her work at the committee. She is always consistent and has been at almost all, if not all meetings, and been part of these recommendations.
I do want to follow up on my intervention with the parliamentary secretary. The member represents the Prime Minister and he said he fully supports the recommendations. In particular, I asked him specifically about the recommendation that the Government of Canada introduce legislation to amend the Investment Canada Act so the thresholds are reviewed on an annual basis, yet the Liberal dissenting opinion is counter to that. Perhaps the member can enlighten us on whether this is just a one-off, or is the Liberal Party position changing because the minister of industry did not address that in his response to the committee's report.
Results: 136 - 150 of 786 | Page: 10 of 53

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data