OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 250 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, November 9, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 9, 2023 DEBATES No. 250 No. 250 N o 250 Volume 151 250 09 11 2023 2023/11/09 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ English ] Departmental Results Reports 2022-23

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of 90 departments and agencies, the departmental results reports for 2022-23.

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023-24

A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (

B) for the financial year ending March 31, 2024, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the supplementary estimates (

B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

(1010) Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 45 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Canada Labour Code

Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.)

Bill C-58. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-58,

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012 . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Public Accounts

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The first report is the 32nd report, entitled “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities”. [ Translation ] I am also presenting the 33rd report of the committee, entitled “International Assistance in Support of Gender Equality”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these reports.

[ English ] Public Safety and National Security

Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 9th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to Bill C-20 ,

an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. The committee has studied the bill and decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans, on the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, which states:

That the Committee denounces the government's about-face and lack of respect for the rules in deciding not to award the design of the commemorative monument to the team linking the artist Luca Fortin and the architectural firm Daoust Lestage Lizotte Stecker, which won the competition conducted by a team of experts set up by the Liberal government itself.

[ English ] Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombud Act

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Bill C-362. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-362,

An Act to establish the Office of the Ombud for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, to make related amendments to the Contraventions Act and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts . She said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill to give the Office of the Ombud for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces more independence. I would like to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for seconding this bill. She does a tremendous job as NDP critic for veterans.

Over two decades, many Canadians have raised serious concerns about Canada's military culture, including cases of sexual misconduct. Despite the Deschamps and Arbour reports, hearings in Parliament and appeals from survivors, the Liberals have failed to address these systemic problems. My bill would establish that the Office of the Ombud would report directly to Parliament and not the Minister of Defence . This independence is essential to ensuring that Canadian Forces personnel and DND employees can trust in the process and receive help.

Importantly, Canada's current military ombudsman has asked this government to make his office completely independent. The Liberals have refused to take action, but we have done enormous work to address the challenges within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. This bill is an essential step. I thank the advocates who have helped to get us to this point, and I encourage the government to support this bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1015) National Defence Act

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Bill C-363. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-363,

An Act to amend the National Defence Act (sexual offences) . She said: Madam Speaker, I rise to table my second private member's bill,

an act to amend the National Defence Act, regarding sexual offences. Again, I would like to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for seconding this bill. This bill would amend the National Defence Act in order to remove certain sexual offences committed in Canada from the jurisdiction of the military justice system. It would implement one of the recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour to transfer all cases of sexual offences by military members to civilian authorities.

It has been 18 months since the Arbour report, and the Liberal government has failed to introduce legislation to do this. However, for many survivors of sexual misconduct in the military, this problem is urgent, and they are tired of waiting for the Liberals to do the right thing. New Democrats stand with the women in the Canadian Armed Forces, who continue to wait for a real culture change in the face of sexual misconduct and assault in the military. Survivors deserve justice.

I thank the survivors for their bravery, and I urge the Liberal government to support this bill and show real commitment to ending sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Bill C-364. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-364,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) . He said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Peterborough—Kawartha for seconding this bill. I want to thank all my colleagues who are a part of the rural crime caucus that we have in the Conservative Party. During the first term of the current government, we struck the rural crime task force. We consulted with Albertans and Canadians from coast to coast. We put together a report called “Toward a Safer Alberta”. That report had numerous recommendations in it, including legislative changes that could be made.

Even though we have been through the pandemic, the rural crime statistics still apply today. The police have done what they can. They have reorganized themselves. Governments that are not in charge of the Criminal Code have done everything they can to take this seriously, and there seems to be a new-found interest across the way in the plight of rural Canadians. We can just imagine someone setting up a chop shop or a meth lab in a rural area, far away from the various police stations and communities, which is done purposefully to avoid detection.

They cause absolute hell for people in rural communities, because the crime from organized crime elements is absorbed by just a small number of residents. That is why this bill is so important. I encourage my colleagues across the way to give consideration to it. It would change the Criminal Code at the time of sentencing and make it an aggravating factor if somebody is purposefully targeting somebody in a rural area, where proximity to emergency services and police services is a very difficult thing.

It does a number of other things, including strengthening provisions for sentencing, when it comes to using or carrying a weapon to a crime scene. It also changes the term “dwelling” to “place”, because lots of break and enters happen to barns and Quonset huts. Lots of other valuables are kept in storage in rural areas. I really encourage all my colleagues in the House to take a look at the bill. Let us get this bill adopted post-haste. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1020) Consumer-Led Banking Act

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Bill C-365. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-365,

An Act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians . He said: Madam Speaker, Conservatives want to get Canadians back in control of their financial freedom. Right now, Canada's oligopoly of six banks controls 93% of Canadians' business. Those banks also have a monopoly on Canadians' financial data. Canadians do not own or control their financial data; the banks do.

Our common-sense plan, called consumer-led banking, would force the banks to give consumers back control of their financial data and, on their consent, share that with competitors who would fight for Canadian financial business. This would create competition, drive prices down and bring financial freedom to Canadian families. If we compare Canadian banks to those in the U.K., right now, Canadians have bank fees that average $14.50 to $15 a month, average transactional fees of $1.40 and average overdraft fees of $25. In the U.K., which has this legislation, these fees cost zero dollars.

Mortgage rates in the U.K. today average 5.99% versus Canada, which is 6.99%. That is a difference of 100 basis points. Consumer-led banking legislation forces the government to stop dragging their heels and bring forward the second report on open banking, which has been sitting on the finance minister's desk since May and, within six months, to table common-sense, consumer-led banking legislation. This has been promised now for four years. In this way, Canadians, not the banks, can control their own financial data and financial future once again. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Faith Observance

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am tabling a petition today prior to Remembrance Day. In just under a week, 227 residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo signed a petition. They object to recent changes by the Department of National Defence that outlaw any sort of faith observance or prayer at Remembrance Day ceremonies. The petitioners are obviously unhappy with the state of affairs that was outlined in a recent memorandum.

Climate Change

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is with respect to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the repeated warnings of rising temperatures over the next two decades that will continue to bring widespread devastation and extreme weather. The petitioners bring to our attention that in Canada today we are seeing increased flooding, wildfires and extreme temperatures. They are calling on the Government of Canada to move immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.

(1025) Food Security

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from community members in Kingston and the Islands regarding food programs in schools. They recognize that around the world, these programs are essential to the health, well-being and education of students, with over 388 million children in at least 161 countries receiving free or subsidized meals at school. The petitioners indicate that Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program.

The petitioners from the Holy Cross Catholic Secondary School community and residents of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington region call upon the Minister of Finance , the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to prioritize funding a national school food program through budget 2024 for implementation in schools by the fall of 2024.

Asbestos

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Madam Speaker, I am tabling e-petition 4375 today. I believe this is the first time this issue has been raised on the floor of the House of Commons in any form and the first petition. I want to thank the person who initiated this petition, Mary Ann Sjogren-Branch, and Julian Branch who brought this to our attention, as well as Prevent Cancer Now and other networks of grassroots citizens. They are concerned about the presence of asbestos in drinking water. This is an under-studied and unregulated problem.

Believe it or not, many municipalities rely on old cement water pipes to deliver water to millions of Canadians and the pipes contain asbestos fibres. When they crack, break or deteriorate slowly, asbestos fibres are getting into our drinking water. As far as we are aware and health studies show, asbestos is very dangerous to us, whether inhaled or ingested, including in our drinking water.

The petitioners are calling for the Government of Canada to take urgent steps to assess the health risk of asbestos in drinking water, to establish a federal-provincial-territorial committee to establish drinking water guidelines for asbestos, to do a complete inventory of asbestos-contaminated water pipes, release this data publicly and develop a plan to replace asbestos-cement water pipes. There are a number of other elements to this petition.

The petition draws this to the attention of all members in this place because if we check our own communities, we may find that members' constituents are relying on cement pipes for drinking water that are contaminated with asbestos fibres.

Public Safety

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. I rise for the 24th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The NDP-Liberal government is failing to get results for the people of Swan River amidst a crime wave that has swept through the rural town of 4,000. A recent report from the Manitoba West district RCMP revealed that within 18 months, the region experienced 1,184 service calls and 703 offences committed by just 15 individuals. Ten prolific offenders were responsible for 133 violent offences.

One individual was responsible for 217 calls for service alone. This is why these community members are asking for action. They demand jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. The people of Swan River demand the Liberal government repeals its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Firearms

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, and I will present them briefly. The first is seeking to support the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners. Petitioners are aware sound moderators are the only universally recognized health and safety device that is criminally prohibited in our country. The majority of G7 countries have recognized the health and safety benefits of sound moderators, allowing them for hunting, sport shooting and reducing noise pollution. These petitioners are calling on the government to allow legal firearms owners the option to purchase and use sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.

Criminal Code

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the second petition indicates it is well established the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant and justice requires that an attacker who abuses a pregnant woman and her preborn child be sentenced accordingly and that the sentence should match the crime. Petitioners call upon the House of Commons to legislate the abuse of a pregnant woman and/or the infliction of harm on a preborn child as aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Mr. Paul Chiang (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to rise in this House to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Markham—Unionville. This petition calls for additional transparency from clothing and retail companies surrounding the supply chain process with respect to working conditions and environmental regulations. This petition calls on the federal government to require those companies to adhere to standards that ensure no human rights abuses or forced labour exists anywhere within the supply chains. It also calls for similar standards to be implemented that prevent environmental damage within supply chains and asks that companies that do not meet these standards face meaningful consequences.

(1030) Pornography

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading explicit material. They comment how this access is an important public health and safety concern. Petitioners also note that in an era in which we say we do not want violence against women, there are serious harms that come from this sexually explicit material including the development of attitudes favourable to the harassment of women and sexual violence.

As such, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons and the government to pass Bill S-210 quickly and forthright. The second petition comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the age and consent verification of those depicted in pornographic material. The petitioners are asking the government to follow recommendation 2 from the 2021 Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics report on MindGeek, which would require that all content-hosting platforms in Canada verify age and consent prior to the uploading of content.

Bill C-270 , the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act, would add two offences to the Criminal Code. The first would require age verification and consent prior to distribution. The second would require the removal of that material if consent is withdrawn. As such, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-270 to stop Internet sexual exploitation.

Natural Health Products

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I will be short today; I only have four petitions to table. The first petition is from Canadians who are very concerned about the NDP-Liberal government's attack on access to natural health products. Petitioners note how, through the last omnibus budget bill supported by the NDP and the Liberals, access was threatened through new rules that would mean higher costs and fewer products available on the shelf. New so-called cost recovery provisions would impose massive costs on all consumers of natural health products and undermine access for Canadians who rely on these products.

Provisions would also give the government substantial new arbitrary powers around the regulation and withdrawal of products. Petitioners note the old system was working fine and call on the Government of Canada to reverse the changes made in the last NDP-Liberal budget that imposed additional costs on users of natural health products, noting that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Freedom of Political Expression

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the next petition expresses support for a private member's bill, Bill C-257 , which would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds for discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Petitioners know how fundamental and important the free exchange of ideas is in a democracy and that discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and threats to employment and the like, against those whose political beliefs an employer or others may disagree with, undermine the free exchange of ideas. Bill C-257 seeks to remedy that. Petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of all Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

International Development

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the third petition responds to the aspects of the government's so-called feminist international assistance policy. Petitioners note that this policy has shown a lack of respect for the cultural values and autonomy of women in the developing world, by supporting organizations that violate local laws and push external priorities at the expense of local priorities like clean water, basic nutrition and economic development.

They also note that the Auditor General has criticized this government's approach to international development for women and girls because it has completely failed to measure results and, further, that the Muskoka Initiative launched by the previous Conservative government involved historic investments in the well-being of women and girls and emphasized value for money, results and ensuring that priorities responded to those priorities identified by local women who were receiving and supposed to benefit from this aid.

Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to align international development spending with the approach taken by the Muskoka Initiative, focusing international development dollars on meeting the basic needs of vulnerable women around the world rather than pushing ideological agendas that may conflict with local values in developing countries, and call on the government to measure outcomes.

(1035) Children and Families

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the fourth and final petition that I will be tabling today encourages the government to butt out of decisions that should properly be made by provinces and parents. It notes that in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them more than any state-run institution. The role of the government is to support families and respect parents, not to dictate how they should make decisions for their children. It calls on the government, again, to butt out and let parents raise their own children.

Natural Health Products

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Regina—Lewvan and folks across Saskatchewan, which asks this House and the government to butt out, as my friend said, of natural health products. The petition draws the attention of the House to the fact that freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and further threatened by legislation and statutory regulations of the Government of Canada, with regard to this fundamental right for individuals to be able to choose how to prevent illness or how to address illness or injury in their own bodies.

Canadians want the freedom to decide how they will prevent illness or how they will address illness or injury in their own bodies. Canadians are competent and able to make their own health care decisions without state interference. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the charter of health freedom drafted by the Natural Health Products Protection Association on September 4, 2008.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1742 and 1743.

[ Text ]

Question No. 1742—

Mrs. Kelly Block :

With regard to the finding from the Privacy Commissioner that Canada Post's Smartmail Marketing Program contravenes

section 5 of the Privacy Act: (

a) has the minister responsible for Canada Post directed the corporation to amend the program to bring it into compliance with the Privacy Act, and, if so, what are the details, including the (

i) date, (ii)

summary of the direction given; and (

b) what action has Canada Post taken to change the program to bring it into compliance with the Privacy Act?

Mr. Charles Sousa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Canada Post has a mandate to serve all Canadians and takes matters relating to privacy very seriously. It works closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, OPC, whenever there is a complaint. Discussions are ongoing between the minister responsible for Canada Post and the president and CEO of Canada Post Corporation, CPC, regarding the Smartmail marketing program for neighbourhood mail, which was highlighted in the OPC report.

CPC has shared that it is looking at ways to better inform Canadians on how their mailing data is utilized, while outlining their options. With regard to part (a)(i), the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, who is responsible for CPC, and Doug Ettinger, Canada Post's president and CEO, discussed the matter on September 20, 2023. With regard to part (a)(ii), as Canada Post is an arm’s-length Crown corporation, Mr. Ettinger reiterated to the minister Canada Post’s commitment to continue working closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to resolve the issue.

With regard to part (b), CPC is trusted to handle Canadians' personal information every day and therefore understands that Canadians may be concerned following the release of the annual Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada report, which outlined concerns with regard to the use of address data in CPC’s Smartmail marketing program. CPC is committed to the Privacy Act and the protections it places on personal information, and will therefore conduct a review of its data services program to ensure it lives up to the standards that Canadians expect.

In the meantime, CPC will be taking greater steps to increase transparency and awareness of its approach, while streamlining and providing greater visibility for its opt-out programs. CPC will continue to work closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Question No. 1743—

Mr. Adam Chambers :

With regard to the government's Debt Management Strategy from 2023 to 2028: what are the financial assumptions used by the government to calculate the debt service cost projections, including (

i) the weighted average interest rates used, (ii) the amount of new debt issued, (iii) the yearly rollover, (iv) any other financial assumptions?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, debt service cost projections rest on published assumptions. With regard to part (i), weighted average interest rates are based on, first, the yield curve constructed from the three month treasury bill rate and 10 year government bond rate, as forecast by private sector economists and published in each budget and fall economic statement. See budget 2023’s Table A1.1, “Average Private Sector Forecasts”. Second, they are based on the weights of short- and long term debt issuances implied by the debt management strategy, typically published as an annex in each budget.

See budget 2023’s Table A2.2, “Gross Bond Issuances by Maturity”. With regard to part (ii), the amount of new debt required to be issued, or the financial requirement, is the difference between inflows and outflows to the government, informed by the latest projection of the budgetary balance, put on a cash basis. This is published in each budget. See Table A1.8, “The Budgetary Balance, Non-Budgetary Transactions and Financial Source/Requirement”. It is also included in the debt management strategy. See budget 2023’s Table A2.1, “Planned/Actual Sources and Uses of Borrowings for Fiscal Year 2023-24”.

With regard to part (iii), the yearly rollover is the maturity of debt previously issued, that is, legacy bonds and bills that need to be refinanced over the forecast horizon. This is based on actual data relating to the underlying legacy bond issuances, as publicly available on the Bank of Canada website in real time and reported annually in the public accounts, volume III,

section 7. It is also included in the debt management strategy. See budget 2023’s Table A2.1, “Planned/Actual Sources and Uses of Borrowings for Fiscal Year 2023-24”.

With regard to part (iv), other financial assumptions, as forecast by private sector economists and published in each budget and fall economic statement, such as budget 2023’s Table A1.1, include adjustments to inflation protected real return bonds to reflect fluctuations in changes to the rate of consumer price index inflation, exchange rate impacts on issuances in foreign currencies and updated actuarial and interest rate assumptions related to pension and benefit obligations.

The sensitivity of debt service cost projections to changes in macroeconomic parameters, such as changes in interest rates, is published in each budget. See budget 2023’s Table A1.15, “Estimated Impact of a Sustained 100-Basis-Point Increase in All Interest Rates on Federal Revenues, Expenses and Budgetary Balance”.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Question No. 1738, originally tabled on November 6, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1744 and 1745 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Text ]

Question No. 1738—

Mr. Terry Dowdall :

With regard to lockstations on the Trent Severn Waterway and the Rideau Canal, broken down by location: (

a) what operational metrics are regularly collected and reported to Parks Canada management since May 19, 2023; (

b) how many hours was each lockstation inoperative during regular hours of operation; (

c) how many full days was each lockstation inoperative; (

d) for what reason or reasons was each lockstation inoperative; and (

e) for each reason in (d), how many hours or days was each lockstation inoperative as a result?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1744—

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

With regard to VIA Rail's High Frequency Rail project: (

a) what are the details of all studies or assessments funded in relation to the project since January 1, 2016, including, for each, the (

i) start and end dates, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) vendor, (iv) type of study or assessment, (

v) topic examined, (vi) findings; (

b) what is the procurement status for each major item required for the project; and (

c) what are the details of all goods or services procured to date, including, for each, the (

i) date, (ii) amount paid, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of the goods or services, including the quantity?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1745—

Mr. Gary Vidal :

With regard to government funding for organizations representing the Métis people: what is the total amount of funding provided to each organization since 2013, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders

[ English ] National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

Hon. Dan Vandal (for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry)

moved that Bill C-34,

an act to amend the Investment Canada Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-34. Third reading

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is great to take the floor in the most honourable House to speak to a very important topic, Bill C-34 , the Investment Canada Act modernization. Before I get into my formal remarks, perhaps it is a coincidence, although I do not think so, that this morning the OECD released its foreign direct investment numbers, and Bill C-34 deals with foreign entities investing in Canada, Canadians and our communities. Canada came third in the OECD ranking for the first half of 2023. First is the United States, then Brazil, ourselves and Mexico.

I think that speaks not only to the confidence of foreign entities, companies and corporations investing in Canada, creating jobs, wealth and great futures for Canadians, but also to what I would say is the idea that confident governments invest in their people and their communities.

That is something we, as a government, have done since 2015 with respect to the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, the implementation of an early learning and national day care plan, the support for students by eliminating interest on student debt, and the two middle-income tax cuts: the first in 2015 from 22% to 20.5%, with roughly $3 billion to $4 billion a year, depending on tax filings, in savings for Canadians, and raising the basic personal expenditure amount to $15,000, which in the fiscal year 2024-25 will deliver over $6 billion in savings for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Confident governments invest in Canadians and Canadian communities. (1040) [ Translation ] I am grateful to hon. members, my esteemed colleagues, for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-34 ,

an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. So far, the House of Commons has voted unanimously in favour of these objectives. The bill has been thoroughly studied by the members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. We encourage the House to send this bill to the Senate for consideration. Everyone already knows that this legislation plays an important role in our economy and helps make Canada a destination of choice for foreign investment. [ English ] Foreign investment in Canada is booming.

We have seen it in the auto sector, the mining sector, the food processing sector, the agriculture sector and so many sectors across this country, because Canada is a destination of choice for foreign investment. It creates jobs. It creates futures. [ Translation ] The act helps create business-friendly conditions based on a stable and clear set of regulations. [ English ] We need a stable and clear system in place to attract foreign investment, and Bill C-34 would do exactly that. [ Translation ] The act encourages economic growth and employment.

It provides for intervention only if an investment is potentially harmful to Canada's national security, but it also permits quick action and judgments as circumstances warrant. That is what we intend to accomplish through the amendments made by Bill C‑34. The time has clearly come to modernize the Investment Canada Act and bring it in line with the times. Our industries are still some of the most dynamic in the world. However, Canada is confronting unprecedented geostrategic and national security challenges. [ English ] Indeed, Canada remains a destination of choice for foreign investment.

It continues to grow and to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast. This investment helps businesses prosper and grow, creates good-paying jobs and ensures strong economic growth that benefits all Canadians. Canada has a long-standing reputation for welcoming foreign investment and a strong framework to promote trade while advancing Canadian interests. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for foreign direct investments. The Investment Canada Act, the ICA, was enacted 38 years ago, in 1985.

The act allowed the government to review significant foreign investments to ensure that these benefits exist. It was updated in 2009 to include a framework for a national security review of foreign direct investments. The world in which Canada now operates is increasingly characterized by the complexity of linkages between economic competition and the geostrategic clashes. We see it on a daily basis. Globalization has brought new threats to Canada's national and economic security, but of course many benefits also.

Canada must have the tools and resources to protect its assets from economic threats to national security when those are deemed so. The Investment Canada Act must, therefore, also continually adapt to these considerations. The complexity of these dynamics can be seen in the increased volume of activity under the act in recent years. Indeed, there have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in the entire previous decade. The review process is also increasingly complex as international transactions and ownership structures are increasingly becoming more complicated and, in some locations, more opaque.

The proposed modernization of the Investment Canada Act is designed to make the review process more efficient and transparent. Bill C-34 sets out a series of amendments to improve the national security review process of foreign investments and to modernize the Investment Canada Act. Collectively, these amendments would be the most significant legislative update of the act since 2019. These amendments also represent one of the multiple steps the government has taken to ensure that we can defend our economic interests, contribute to global supply chain resiliency and protect our national security.

This, in turn, would help us to attract stronger partnerships with our allies to foster economic growth. A stronger foreign investment regime attracts good, beneficial investments into Canada, ones that would create high-quality jobs and opportunities for all Canadians. We have seen this with the $7-billion investment by Volkswagen and the multi-billion dollar investment by Stellantis.

We see it with Honda and Toyota, in Alliston and Cambridge, where they continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions of dollars initially, in creating quality good-paying jobs for Canadians here in the province of Ontario, with a supply chain that stretches from coast to coast. Defending our economic interests and protecting our national security interests are of critical importance, especially in the current climate of rapidly shifting geopolitical threats. This issue is a non-partisan one.

During the six sitting days that Bill C-34 was debated, the House has repeatedly stressed the need to modern the ICA to achieve those objectives. The House ultimately decided, in a unanimous vote, to refer the bill for study, because we all recognized how important it was to get these amendments right so we can protect national security while ensuring that we are not chilling useful, good investment. Canada's foreign investment regime must adapt to the speed of innovation, which we know moves very quickly these days.

In recent years, intangible assets in the knowledge economy, like intellectual property and data, have grown in importance in defining Canada's economic strengths and, at the same time, pose new challenges in terms of how these are to be managed in order to ensure that the benefits occur to Canada and Canadians. The government recognizes the value of the intangible economy, its growth and the relevant opportunities for all Canadians, particularly in artificial intelligence and intellectual property. These new innovations are driving new ways of doing business, with huge opportunities for Canadians.

The government will support this growth as it helps drive Canada's economy and supports highly skilled, good-paying jobs. It is great to see the city of Montreal become a cluster for artificial intelligence, with a number of companies investing in that city. It is great to see the Kitchener-Waterloo corridor here in Ontario continue to be the leader in the tech sector. It is great to see the city of Toronto continue to see the investments from domestic and foreign firms in fintech, and so many other types of businesses in this knowledge economy, but to do so—

(1045) Mr. Rick Perkins :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering about relevance. We are talking about foreign investment into Canada and about Bill C-34 . The hon. member is talking about artificial intelligence and investment in Montreal, which has absolutely nothing to do with the bill.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member started out his speech talking about the bill, and I trust he will come back to it. There is some leeway in the way members address the subject. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, I sit on the industry committee with the hon. member, and I appreciate his intervention. We will always talk about the Investment Canada Act and how foreign companies are investing into Canada and creating good-paying, middle-class jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what I am doing in my speech this morning. Tools such as the Investment Canada Act must also be modernized to offer additional protections in light of changing geopolitical and technological advancements and to prevent hostile actors from exploiting Canada's expertise and capacity for innovation.

We must all be aware of geopolitical risks, and that they and instability are now fixtures in our operating environment, especially for businesses. Hostile state and non-state actors pursue deliberate strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property. They do so in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada's interests and principles. We also know that foreign investments can be used as a conduit for foreign influence activities that seek to weaken our norms, values and institutions.

Members will recall that the Investment Canada Act played an important role in Canada's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As early as March 2022, we issued a policy statement saying that any investment, controls or influence by the Russian State will also support a determination by the minister that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such an investment could be injurious to Canada's national security, regardless of its value. The statement sends a clear message about our commitment to protecting Canada's economic security from unwanted investment.

Moreover, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy is clear that the region will play a critical role in Canada's future over the next half-century. The significant opportunities for economic growth in the region are also accompanied by challenges related to the objectives of certain world powers that do not share our democratic and liberal principles. We must respond to this reality in a number of ways, including in the way foreign investment is assessed and examined. In short, the Investment Canada Act plays a key role in protecting Canada's economic interests from hostile foreign actors.

It is broad in scope and allows Canada to respond to changing threats that may arise from foreign investment, while protecting Canada's openness to beneficial international investment. Again, I would like to say that this morning, the OECD stated its numbers for foreign direct investment in Canada, which OSFI operates through the Investment Canada Act to a large degree. Canada, for the first half of this year, came in third place behind the United States and Brazil. That is all the OECD rankings of over 30 countries.

We are on the right path of continuing to grow the economy, attracting foreign investment from all over the world, along with our domestic companies investing. The act is broad in scope and allows Canada to respond to changing threats that may arise from foreign investment, while protecting Canada's openness to beneficial international investment. The package of amendments proposed in this bill is designed to assure businesses and investors that Canada has a clear, predictable and stable regulatory regime. The nexus between technology and national security is clear and is here to stay.

Rapid technological innovation has provided Canada with new opportunities for economic growth, but it has also given rise to new and difficult policy challenges. (1050) [ Translation ] More and more, Canada is being targeted by hostile actors. That threatens both our national security and our prosperity. Our government must therefore adapt our tools to more effectively defend us against current and future threats.

All around the world, foreign investments are now coming under much closer scrutiny from a national security standpoint, also considering various factors such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the repercussions of climate change on security, global supply chain disruptions and changing geopolitical considerations. We are equipping ourselves today to face the threats of tomorrow. Canada will remain a destination of choice for foreign investment. [ English ] Now, more than ever, we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to foster an innovative, healthy and growing economy.

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 interests and imperatives that could harm Canada's national security. I will repeat that these types of investments in sectors deemed sensitive currently face enhanced scrutiny under the Investment Canada Act. Our government believes that an effective review regime must be robust, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world and now is the time to make these changes.

I believe the last changes were made in 2009. That is why we stand today to vote in favour of this bill, which represents the most significant amendments to the ICA since 2009. We are making important moves now to review and modernize key aspects of the act while ensuring that the overreaching framework to support foreign investment to grow our economy remains strong, open and, I would add, flexible. Our record as a government makes it abundantly clear that where national security is concerned, we will not shy away from decisive action.

Our assessment of risk keeps pace with evolving economic and geopolitical circumstances. The ICA already gives us much of the authority we need to intercede and address national security risks that can arise from foreign investments. These amendments build on a strong foundation and will improve the mechanics around national security review of investment. Now is the time to act decisively so that we can make sure that Canada will continue to gain the economic benefits of investment while strengthening our ability to address threats to our country and ensure its future prosperity.

We recognize that Bill C-34 has undergone a rigorous, robust study spanning across 11 meetings. I applaud the members of the industry committee on this process. During those meetings, we heard from a variety of legal and subject-matter experts, who testified about the benefits that foreign direct investment has on Canadian businesses, the importance of protecting Canada's intellectual property and the need to ensure a regime that is capable of tackling the emerging national security challenges that Canada and our security partners are facing in the liberal democracies of the world.

We have engaged meaningfully with opposition members to discuss their perspectives and concerns and have worked collaboratively to bring new amendments that will further strengthen the bill. We have worked together to ensure that Canada's foreign investment regime continues to be the gold standard. Bill C-34 will provide us with better tools to protect our national security. It will also help to bring Canada into greater alignment with our international partners and allies. My colleagues heard from witnesses at INDU about how important it is for Canada to have a regime comparable to its allies.

Having a comparable regime helps to address common threats and maximize our collective effectiveness. (1055) [ Translation ] We all know that the amendments proposed in Bill C‑34 will contribute to that important balance. We have to protect Canadians and Canadian businesses while ensuring that investors continue to see Canada as a destination of choice. [ English ] Yes, Canada is the first destination of choice for foreign investment. We know that Canada and our allies share similar national and economic security concerns.

Our allies are concerned with threat actors operating in multiple jurisdictions to secure a monopoly in critical access in technology. We see that with critical minerals. It is becoming increasingly more important to share information with allies to support national security assessments to prevent these threats from happening. This new information-sharing authority strengthens co-operation between Canada and other like-minded countries to defend against an investor that may be active in several jurisdictions seeking the same technology, for example, and having motives ill toward.

That said, Canada would not be obligated to share such information where there are confidentiality or other concerns. I want to thank my esteemed colleagues for their attention today. I can assure members that our approach is pragmatic, principled and collaborative. It provides a solid framework to address evolving geopolitical threats while allowing Canada's review regime to be more aligned with our international allies and in the interests of Canadians.

The collaborative efforts during the INDU committee ensure that we meet these goals, which is why I believe that this bill, as amended, should be adopted and referred to the Senate. We are confident that with Bill C-34 , Canada will continue to encourage positive investment that will grow our economy and create good jobs in all ridings across Canada. I do not think there is a riding in Canada that does not have some form of foreign direct investment in it or that is not affected by foreign direct investment.

It should always be done in a positive, long-term and sustainable manner without having to compromise on national security. We know that in today's world there are actors, foreign-state actors and non-state actors, who have ill intentions towards the liberal democracies of the world, including our blessed home here in Canada, and so we need the best of both worlds. I hope all of us can work together to stand for Bill C-34 to get it to the Senate for further study and make this bill law to strengthen Canada's economic and national security. It has been a pleasure to speak to this bill this morning.

It was great to see the OECD comment with respect to Canada's reputation for foreign direct investment and coming into third place for the first half of the year. We have seen flows in foreign direct investment via countries across the world, with Canada being increasingly the destination of choice. There are the Volkswagen investment and the Stellantis investment, as well as Honda, Toyota and other entities. There are investments in Kingston, investments in Northvolt in Quebec and investments in B.C. that are happening.

Across the board, we see foreign companies choosing Canada to invest their dollars for their shareholders to create wealth here in Canada. It is something that is great to see. We need to encourage it from all sides of the House. I thank hon. members for their attention this morning. I look forward to hearing their questions and comments.

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, in general, Conservatives like elements in Bill C-34 . However, we believe that the bill does not go far enough. In the spirit of collaboration, Conservatives put forth 14 amendments and only four were agreed to by our colleagues across the way. It is funny, because the Liberals always say not to worry, that they will work collaboratively across the aisle in committee and will get things done. There is one thing this bill does not do. It took away the requirement for cabinet oversight in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security.

It gives sole responsibility to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Public Safety . Why does the government always preach collaboration, but in the spirit of fairness, did not work with Conservatives and other opposition parties to agree to the other 10 of the 14 amendments?

(1100) Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, Cariboo—Prince George is a beautiful part of British Columbia in our blessed nation. It was great to see that in total, eight amendments were adopted during the committee study of the bill, with four of them being from the official opposition. That is something we can all applaud with respect to where there was collaboration.

In terms of how far the bill goes and does not go, I do want to put on the record this morning that independent of where the investment is coming from, whether it is from Russia, China or any other state actor or non-state actor, all investments will be reviewed if they need to be. In terms of the minister, there will be more added flexibility because the minister would take a look at it rather than it being a Governor in Council decision. That also would provide flexibility. There are a number of improvements in this bill. It is a vast update from the 2009 iteration. It is great to see that this has happened.

I would say, in my humble view, to the member for Cariboo—Prince George that there was a lot of collaboration. I see that now, sitting on the industry committee with my colleagues from all parties, and it is great to see that we continue to go forward in the same manner on other pieces of legislation.

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , I wonder if the member can speak to the importance of the NDP amendment to clause 8, which would allow for the review of foreign investments or takeovers to consider intellectual property and remedies to retain benefits in Canada.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very pertinent and direct question. I believe that amendment was adopted and it has relevance to what the hon. member was referring to in order to ensure that we examine any effects of any rights related to intellectual property where their development was funded by the Government of Canada. I believe that is one of the tangents that the hon. member is asking for. Intellectual property in itself is something very important in today's world. Intellectual property, in terms of patents being put in place in different jurisdictions, has different effects.

We know that intellectual property is something that we always need to examine. It is changing rapidly, and we need to have a regime in place here. One process is with the Investment Canada Act which directly examines this, because it is very important for our national and economic security.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke to the importance of working together with our security partners and our allies. Certainly, over the past eight years, we have watched that relationship crumble to some degree with a lack of interest of even including us in conversations. I am a little confused as to why the government did not respond to our recommendation to provide exemptions to the Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises. They are our allies, people whom we could potentially have a good relationship with and trust each other.

The Conservatives proposed an exemption to prevent an overly broad review process. It was rejected by the government. Rather than focusing on real and serious threats to safety, the government would seem to rather utilize its time and resources on scrutinizing our most trusted security partners. What is the rationale for not moving forward with that recommendation?

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, in terms of Canada's relationship with our Five Eyes partners or groups, we have a very robust relationship. It is a very strong relationship. It is a relationship that has existed for many years, and I would say decades. It is a relationship where day to day, people working for the Government of Canada, our security and defence apparatus, are in contact with their pertinent peers. It is something that all governments need to value and respect. We know that. Canada is at the table on a multilateral basis in many organizations throughout the world.

In terms of the question that the hon. member had about a review of investments, when we examine foreign direct investments we must have the mindset where we do not put in place exemptions. We obviously understand who our allies are in the liberal democracies of the world, whether it be the United States, Australia, the U.K., or other countries, but putting in place exemptions, I personally feel, is not the right way to pursue the legislative process in the Investment Canada Act.

It must be broad enough to handle certain unique situations, but it must be focused in a place so that if investments are coming from state and non-state actors, the process is robust, with the capacity to review them for national security and economic considerations.

(1105) [ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech very optimistic. He said that he sees foreign investment in Canada as a good thing. I agree with him. Everyone wants foreign investment. We are always happy when people want to invest money here. That means our country is an attractive place and there will be job creation and economic spinoffs and so on. I have nothing against that. There is just one small problem. We need to know what the investment is. We need to be able to look at it, at least. From 2021 to 2022, only 2% of the 1,255 proposed investments were reviewed. I see that as a bit of a problem.

I feel that, sometimes, these investments are serving interests that may not align with ours. We should at least have a way to review these proposals to determine whether they are in our interest or not. Does my colleague not feel his government is a bit too naively optimistic about this?

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very important question. Foreign investment is vital to our economy, our national security and our future. We are talking about the future of our constituents. [ English ] When we examine foreign direct investment in Canada, it is very important that this modernized bill, Bill C-34 , come through. The last time the ICA was reviewed was in 2009. The economic world and the technological world have changed greatly since 2009. We need this bill to move forward. The collaboration that was seen at the industry committee was very important. It was great to see.

We continue to move forward on this bill, which is in the interests of all Canadians and our economic future.

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and his answers to questions. What I did not hear from him was an explanation about why he and his colleagues voted against the amendment at committee that would have sent every acquisition by a company headquartered in a hostile state like China or Russia to an automatic national security review. That was a legitimate national security power that we wanted to give the minister, yet the Liberals refused it. Can the member tell us, please, why his party continues to be soft on China and Russia?

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, we are not soft on Russia in any manner. Investments that come from China, Russia or any other state or non-state actors are all reviewed very judiciously and diligently by the folks covered under the Investment Canada Act, and they will continue to do so. We need to ensure that the intentions of people investing in Canada are in our national security interest and that they will help their shareholders in their creation of wealth and so forth.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to a bill that Conservatives believe is critical to the safety and security of Canadians. At face value, Bill C-34 would amend the Investment Canada Act with the intent to bolster Canada’s foreign investment review process and increase penalties for certain instances of malpractice or contraventions of the act. Canadians could consider this bill an attempt by the Liberals to take threats posed by some cases of foreign investment seriously.

However, we live in an increasingly volatile world and, as we have seen over these past few months, Canada is not immune to infiltration and manipulation from abroad. In the past, Liberals have failed to thoroughly review transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises. This pattern is repeating itself through Bill C-34 . Namely, clause 15 would remove the obligation for any foreign investment to be subject to a mandatory consultation with cabinet. On this side of the floor, we believe that Canada’s economic and security interests are paramount and this bill would not go far enough to protect them.

That is why we put forward 14 very reasonable amendments at committee that would have intensified the review process of business acquisitions from foreign state-owned entities. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP rejected all but four of them. They are nonetheless critical to improving the bill, so I will touch on each of them. First, the government was prepared to pass a bill that would have given carte blanche access to investment from state-owned enterprises, no matter their relationship with Canada.

There were no provisions that would require any investment by a state-owned enterprise to be subject to an automatic national security review when the government introduced this bill. Our amendment reduced the threshold to trigger a review from $512 million to zero dollars, meaning that all state-owned enterprise investments in Canada must undergo a national security review. Second, Conservatives introduced an amendment which would ensure that the acquisition of any assets by a state-owned enterprise would be subject to review under the national security review process.

It would guarantee that not only new business establishments, acquisitions and share purchases would be considered under the review but also that all assets are included in this process, which is another very good amendment to the bill. Third, when the government introduced the bill, it failed to address concerns regarding companies that have previously been convicted of corruption charges. This makes no sense to me at all. The Conservative amendment now, fortunately, would require an automatic national security review to be conducted whenever a company with a past conviction is involved.

Finally, the government would have been happy to pass a bill that gives more authority and discretion to the minister, despite multiple blunders over the past eight years to take seriously the real threats posed by some foreign investments. The original bill would have left it to the minister to decide whether to trigger a national security review when the threshold was met. The Conservative amendment addresses this oversight and would make a review mandatory, rather than optional, when the $1.9-billion threshold is met.

I do not understand why the government would not have automatically included this in the bill. It concerns me that so many pieces of legislation from the government are giving more and more authority to individual ministers and not to those beyond them to make sure that, within cabinet and the oversight of the House, those things are truly transparent and that sober thought has been applied.

These amendments, the four that I mentioned, are crucial elements to strengthening this bill, but the Liberal-NDP government also denied Canadians further protections by rejecting some other key improvements that Conservatives really do feel should have been there. Witnesses at the committee stressed that many Chinese enterprises operating internationally are indentured to requests from the CCP, even if they are privately owned. That almost seems like an oxymoron, does it not?

Instead of taking sensitive transactions seriously, the Liberals and the NDP rejected our amendment to modify the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include companies headquartered in an authoritarian state, such as China. In addition, the coalition chose to not provide exemptions to Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises. Conservatives proposed an exemption to prevent an overly broad review process, which the Liberals and NDP rejected.

Rather than focusing on real and serious threats to safety, the government would rather utilize its time and resources on scrutinizing our most trusted security partners.

(1110) This makes no sense. Clearly, the government has struggled to get things done in a timely manner, and this would have been an opportunity for it to be far more efficient and to also show an improving relationship with our Five Eyes partners and allies.

Lastly, rather than supporting our amendment to create a list of sectors considered strategic to national security, the Liberals and the NDP chose to leave the process up to regulation and put it at risk of becoming a political exercise, which Canadians are very concerned about when it comes to the government, where stakeholders may invoke national security concerns to protect their own economic interests. Clearly the government has failed over and over again to show it is truly operating in the best interests of Canadians.

I am glad to say that the amendments we were able to pass turned a minor process bill into a major shift in our nation’s approach to foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, but there is still more that could be done to improve it. As it currently written, the bill would give the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Public Safety near sole authority to bypass cabinet and approve projects coming into Canada. Given past precedent, Conservatives have been sounding the alarm for years on why this would be a critical mistake.

I am reminded of when the former minister neglected to conduct a full national security review of partially China-owned Hytera Communications’ purchase of B.C.’s Norsat International in 2017. Twenty-one counts of espionage later, the United States Federal Communications Commission blacklisted Hytera in 2021 due to “an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States”. However, it was not until 2022 that the then minister was left scrambling when the RCMP suspended its contract with Norsat for radio frequency equipment.

Shockingly, Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed that security concerns were not taken into consideration during the bidding process for the equipment. This, of course, raises alarms. The Liberals also failed to consult Canada’s own Communications Security Establishment on the contract. Instead, the contract was merely awarded to the lowest bidder. This is also interesting because, quite often, it seems we are hearing of funds being shared by the government with organizations that simply do not do anything for Canadians with the money they are given. Why was this allowed to happen?

Why was a piece of technology meant to ensure secure communications within Canada’s national police force contracted out to a company accused of compromising national security around the world, as well as serving as a major supplier to China’s Ministry of Public Security? Let us go back to 2020, when the government was prepared to award Nuctech with a $6.8-million deal to provide Canada’s embassies and consulates with X-ray equipment. Nuctech is, again, Chinese-based and founded by the son of a former secretary general of the CCP.

Deloitte Canada reviewed the offer and made a staggering recommendation to the government that it should only install security equipment in Canadian embassies if it originates from companies with national security clearances. Deloitte found that Nuctech’s hardware and software had advanced beyond the government’s existing security requirements to the point that its X-ray machines are capable of gathering information and accessing information networks. This raises huge alarm bells.

Global Affairs Canada did not review Nuctech for risks to national security during its procurement process, nor was the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security asked to conduct its own review. The government often says it will do better and can do better, but these things are happening over and over again. However, all this might have been too little too late, as the government has awarded four additional CBSA contracts to Nuctech since 2017. The government’s laissez-faire attitude to national security is simply beyond comprehension. It does not end there.

The government also cannot be trusted to safeguard the security of Canadians because it cannot even follow its own rules. In March of 2021, the minister updated guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving state-owned enterprises and Canada’s critical minerals. Less than a year later, the same minister violated his own rules by expediting the takeover of the Canadian Neo Lithium Corporation by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining. Once again, this was done without a national security review.

(1115) To make matters worse, the minister defended his decision by refusing to order them to divest from Neo Lithium while ordering three other Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three other critical minerals firms. It is confusing to me that the government would be so inconsistent. The hypocrisy is astounding. The government is once again picking winners and losers, and it is disconcerting who they are choosing to be winners. This time, national security is on the table. This cannot be allowed to continue.

We have seen a pattern of missteps by the government on how programs and projects are approved. Over the last eight years, there has been an unacceptable shift toward putting more power within the hands of ministers and outside advisory councils, with little to no accountability to this place. We certainly see that, and Canadians see it, too. There is less and less of a sense of responsibility in this place to Canadians.

It is as though the government can simply go ahead and provide its ministers with legislation that gives them a carte blanche ability to do things, along with organizations and advisory councils that are outside of this place and do not have the proper oversight that the House of Commons, which reflects Canadians, certainly should have. Often, we find that appointed advisory councils are established at the minister’s discretion prior to a bill even being signed into law. That just shows the incredible lack of respect of the Liberal government to due process in this place.

Other times, we see that the Liberals just cannot seem to pick a lane. With Bill C-27 , for instance, the Privacy Commissioner’s new powers to investigate contraventions of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act were diminished by a personal information and data tribunal. In this tribunal, only three of its six members were required to have experience in information and privacy law—

(1120) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I have to interrupt the hon. member for a point of order, and I believe it is about the noise in the lobby. The Sergeant-at-Arms will address the issue. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has the floor.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for making note of that, which I appreciate. In effect, the tribunal was equipped with power equivalent to a superior court of record, which could overrule any opinion of the Privacy Commissioner. With today's bill, we see the government choosing the path of consolidated power in the hands of two ministers. The Conservative Party will continue to push for the deletion of clause 15 to ensure that cabinet decision-making is central to the investment review process, and not a ministerial power grab. Perhaps we are looking for assistance from the Senate on that.

Cabinet decision-making is at the heart of executive power of our system of government. We want to ensure that no single minister can make the same mistakes that we have seen repeated here time and again. Canadians are depending on us to push for these things to take place. They are sensing less and less of an influence and control, as the democratic individuals in our country vote for the people who sit in this place, including ministers. Therefore, it is really important that we continue to push the government to include the whole process, especially including as well that cabinet intervention.

The Liberals missed their chance to broaden the scope of Bill C-34 so that it would be applicable to changing geopolitical realities. It was a chance to ensure that Canadians and Canadian interests would have a dominant say in what would get built and what would get purchased in our country, how our resources would be managed and, above all, ensure they would be protected from complex and risky foreign interests. Within my own province of Saskatchewan, there is a great deal of concern about the movement into our country, even in regard to purchasing of our land.

Canadians are concerned about all of it, but if there is one thing Canadians are very concerned about, it is that our land belongs to Canadians and that our agricultural industry and others are not taken over by foreign entities. I asked the government earlier in the debate on this bill why Canadians should allow the minister to strip away any sense of accountability to cabinet or the House and empower himself in such a way. It is not in the best interests of Canadians.

It is not in the best interests of any minister who is concerned about ensuring that he or she doing what is absolutely best for Canadians by limiting it to his or her own office and to the bureaucracy, rather than taking into account the voices across the House and within cabinet that represent Canadians. When we form government, Canadians will breathe a sigh of relief on so many levels.

They can rest assured that we will always take a thorough look at the long-term implications of foreign investment with respect to how they would affect our constituents, our economy in the long term and our reputation as a safe and reliable destination for international investment and for the investment of Canadians.

As I have a few minutes, serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to speak on behalf of my communities and my constituents, indeed, all Canadians, and thank our veterans and our serving members as well our reservists, who are potentially facing deployment in the near future. Everyone who serves our country and is deployed or working within the system of National Defence deserves our greatest respect and support. I encourage everyone to please ensure they go out to the Remembrance Day services. I know many have taken place this week.

Unfortunately, being here, I have not been able to participate at home. However, we need to ensure that we go out, in large numbers, and support our veterans.

(1125) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member has put some interesting comments on the record. For the member and anyone who might be following the debate, let us look at what the member just said and contrast that. Stephen Harper went to China and came back with the investment protection agreement for China and Canada. Let us contrast everything the former prime minister did behind closed doors, in a secretive way, in coming up with an agreement that was enforceable by law. Let us then look at what Bill C-34 would do as a modernization from 2009.

What members would find is that, through technology and other advancements like AI, it would make a huge difference. It is one of the reasons we have Bill C-34 today. Would the member not recognize that the investment protection agreement, and the manner in which it was done under Stephen Harper, contradicts virtually everything the member said in her speech?

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, the answer to that is what the previous speaker said. The world has changed incredibly. China is not what China was at that point in time. The reality is that this—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: Madam Speaker, would the member like to hear my answer?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Can we let the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville answer the question that was asked without heckling? The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, truly, the world has changed, and China is on a significantly different path. The member who spoke previous to me from his side of the floor made it really clear, that we have a lot of circumstances taking place in the world. My perspective, and that of many Canadians, is that the government is far from impacting the influence of China in our country. It is lagging. It is not doing what it should be doing and that is putting our country's national protection at risk.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, my thoughts go out to the Groupe TVA employees and their families following last week's catastrophic loss of 547 jobs. This is a heavy loss for my region, where 24 out of 30 jobs were wiped out. Obviously, we have high hopes that the federal government will be there to support these people. As we proposed yesterday, the Bloc Québécois is calling for a summit as well as a $50‑million emergency fund to support our local media, which are a vital part of our democracy and our communities.

Returning to today's topic and the debate on Bill C-34 , I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and one thing jumped out at me. The government tabled this bill so that it could be passed as quickly as possible. However, the Conservatives, who typically advocate for the economy, moved a motion calling for all foreign state-owned companies not belonging to the Five Eyes countries to be excluded from the application of the act, an attempt to slow down foreign investment.

Since 40% of European investment in Canada takes place in Quebec, I want to give the example of Airbus, a French and German state-owned company that, as everyone knows, manufactures airplanes in Mirabel. If the Conservative Party's motion had been adopted in committee, it would have seriously hurt direct foreign investment in Quebec. I would therefore like my colleague to tell me how she thinks she can block all proposed foreign investments from any country other than the Five Eyes. It is possible to have alliances with democratic states that we can trust.

(1130) [ English ]

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, in reference to the first part of the member's intervention, in which he talks about the loss of jobs in Canada, our economy is suffering on all levels and it is due, in a large part, to what was happening before even COVID took place. Investment in Canada was running in the other direction because of the lack of confidence in the government and the over-involvement in extending the time it would take to invest in our country. We have seen that on every level. We have also seen the intervention and interference in freedom of speech and the ability to communicate.

There are all kinds of things impacting our ability as a nation to prosper which the government has had a hand. I am very encouraged with the fact that, in due course, this will all change.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, when Stephen Harper was in power, he thought nothing of selling Canada's natural resources to communist state-owned China. He sold Nexen for $15 billion. He signed the secretive free trade agreement with communist China. The Conservatives are saying that those were different times, that it was a different communist China, that the Liberals were to blame. There is no shortage of blame on selling off our country on behalf of the Liberals or Conservatives.

However, the other thing that Stephen Harper sold off were two world-class mining companies, Inco and Falconbridge, selling Falconbridge to the corporate raider Glencore. Immediately, we lost one of the world-class copper facilities, and we have lost all the investment that used to happen in northern exploration from Falconbridge. Glencore is a corporate raider, and Stephen Harper knew that.

However, if the hon. member is talking about how dangerous the world is today and how much things have changed, why does her leader refuse to get security clearance so he knows what he is talking about when we are dealing with the international crises facing us. Why is he the only leader in the history of the country refusing to take his responsibility seriously and get the clearance so he actually knows what he is talking about in dealing with issues, whether it is China, Hamas or any of these issues facing us today?

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to what the member has to say. Seriously, we all have clearance. The reality is that the government is doing a horrific job of caring for Canadians. I am very proud of the fact that my leader is resonating across this nation, bringing people hope, bringing people a sense of being valued. He understands that when he moves across the floor as prime minister, his role will be as first servant to our country, not someone who will take advantage of his elitism and his ability to undermine the very basic foundations of this nation that Canadians are desperate to have again.

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is always something when the NDP members stand and slander another member of Parliament, whether it is the leader or another member of the official opposition—

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question of security clearance is not slander. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment. That was a cheap shot and it undermines his credibility.

(1135) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

This is very subjective, but it is debate, and we are going to avoid going there. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, if you could, just be judicious in your comments.

Mr. Todd Doherty :

Madam Speaker, I want to ask our hon. colleague why a common-sense amendment to modify the definition of state-owned enterprise to include any company, entity headquartered in an authoritarian state like China could fail? Why would an amendment that seeks to list specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada's national security rather than a systematic approach fail? Why would an amendment that would allow the Government of Canada to maintain ownership of intangible assets that have been developed in whole or in part by taxpayer funding fail?

Why would amendment that would allow the minister to go back and review past state-owned acquisitions through the national security review process to allow for a more flexible review process fail? Why did the NDP-Liberal government coalition block these amendments?

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, I wish I could get into the inner workings of the minds of our Liberal-NDP and now Bloc coalition members to see why they do what they do. From the examples I have given, we certainly sense, know and have experienced that the government has failed miserably, over and over again, to give good reviews and do what it should do on behalf of Canadians. Perhaps this is just my view and that of the folks where I come from, but it seems the government has a different attitude toward some of these countries that should not have the access they do to foreign investment in our country. We want to see Canadians—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

We will have to leave it at that. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by drawing members' attention to an important event that is happening tomorrow. Last week at the opening cocktail reception for the Abitibi-Témiscamingue international film festival, Steve Jolin, known as Anodajay to rap fans, was awarded the National Assembly medal for all of the work that he does to protect cultural vitality. Sandy Boutin from the Emerging Music Festival and Madeleine Perron from the Abitibi-Témiscamingue cultural council also received awards. Why am I talking about this?

The reason is that, following his first album Premier VII , featuring the hit song J'te l'ai jamais dit , Anodajay, an artist from a remote region who raps in French, put out a second album called Septentrion , containing a cover of the classic song La Bittt à Tibi . His version is called Le Beat à Ti-Bi . Tomorrow, November 10, his record label, Disques 7ième Ciel, will be celebrating its 20th anniversary at none other than the Bell Centre.

This record label, which was established 20 years ago, promotes rap and is likely the definitive source for French rap music in North America, with artists such as Koriass, Samian, Manu Militari, Alaclair Ensemble, Souldia, and many others, including Fouki and Zach Zoya, who is originally from Rouyn-Noranda. I should mention that Rouyn-Noranda will be at the Bell Centre tomorrow to celebrate the record company’s 20 years, and I also wanted to acknowledge the talent and fearlessness of Steve Jolin. This will be a great day for Quebec rap.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-34 and its critical importance for us Quebeckers. This bill amends the Investment Canada Act. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑34, which strengthens the federal government's powers regarding oversight of investments that could compromise Canada's national security. More specifically, Bill C‑34 reinforces the minister's authority, giving him the power to impose conditions during national security reviews and to accept undertakings to mitigate national security risks.

These essential amendments are a logical evolution in an increasingly interconnected world where foreign investments play a vital role in the economic development of both Quebec and Canada. Consider the minerals needed to produce technological goods and electrify transportation. All mineral production becomes essential, even strategic, and therefore becomes a national security concern. Consider life sciences or quantum technology businesses or artificial intelligence start-ups.

In these sectors, any investment by a foreign government or a foreign firm, from a country such as China, would automatically be subject to an initial review to prepare for an in-depth study. It would be subject to a national security review and systematically rejected unless the investor can convincingly demonstrate its real benefits, meaning its net benefit for Canada. This is an important point. Bill C‑34 and the new critical mineral policy should put an end to the acquisition of resources by foreign-controlled firms that renders our industry completely dependent.

This is something I vigorously defended at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. These are good mechanisms for Quebec and Canada. They protect our supply chains, our businesses and our sovereignty from ill-intentioned foreign investments. Each new review process essentially copies what is done in the United States, creating the harmonization that our businesses have also been calling for.

By passing Bill C‑34, we are increasing the chances that the U.S. will continue to see us as a trusted partner, which is a condition for being a preferred supplier and, most importantly, for being integrated into their supply chains. The U.S. has agreed to include Canada in its critical minerals supply chain, and, importantly, it has backed off on the most protectionist measures in the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, since Bill C‑34 now meets the requirements, the main one being to align our security policies with those of the United States.

This is an essential prerequisite for including Canada in its industrial modernization strategy, in particular the development of the electrification industry. I have participated in not one, but two ministerial missions on these topics in Washington. I went there two years ago with the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development and last year with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry , who was accompanied at the time by the Minister of National Defence .

That shows how current these policy issues are and how vital they are for maintaining our competitive edge.

(1140) I do thank the government for its openness in committee. The government agreed to clarify the fact that purchasing a company's assets is the same as purchasing the company itself. If a company owns a mine and resources, and we purchase that company, we also get the mine and resources. This is very important, because it means that the transaction is subject to the act. This clarification was necessary, particularly in the case of intangible assets, such as intellectual property patents, where there was a gap in the previous version of the act.

It is crucial that our laws protect our national interests, including intellectual property. There may also be a flaw in the government's overall approach when it comes to protecting intellectual property. Does it go far enough? During our study of Bill C‑34 in committee, several witnesses pointed out that the government could be doing more in that regard. We took a more nuanced position on certain amendments. I supported the idea of considering intellectual property when reviewing transactions because it strengthens our national security and protects our strategic assets.

I want to take this opportunity to mention that other ideas emerged during the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology's work. I will start with a fundamental value: transparency. One of the most important changes that the Bloc Québécois and I argued vigorously in favour of had to do with transparency provisions. That was a major issue the witnesses raised and one that came up in the technical documents that were submitted. I insisted on the need for greater transparency around national security in the decision-making mechanisms.

That calls for more information from agencies responsible for decisions related to national security. That is a legitimate request that comes largely from the professionals who support the parties involved in this type of transaction, as well as from anyone who wants to understand how the decisions are made and which criteria are taken into account. The minister's obligation to make their decisions public represents significant progress.

This will improve the public's understanding and enable individuals, businesses and all stakeholders to better understand the process and the reasons for national security-related decisions. We got a commitment from the minister to disclose certain types of information and require parties to a transaction to disclose the names of individuals benefiting from the new company resulting from the acquisition of or merger with the Quebec or Canadian company.

We are firmly committed to acting in the best interest of the Quebec nation and to ensuring that the preservation of our national interests is in harmony with our democratic values and our pursuit of open and transparent governance. Consider, for example, the acquisition of Rona by Lowe's. Rona was one of Quebec's success stories. It was acquired by Lowe's, but we will never know the conditions set by the federal minister. Nearly a decade later, we need to consider the consequences of that.

Was it because of local procurement obligations, the need to maintain a head office in Montreal or the need to keep a certain number of employees in Quebec, both at the head office and in the companies? Were those aspects respected? We will probably never know, because the conditions were never made public. If they had been, the public would have been better informed and it would have been easier to hold the company to account regarding whether or not Quebec's interests were respected. Let me remind the House that we lost a head office at that time, and that must never happen again.

Greater transparency is therefore an important gain. Now let us talk about thresholds. The Bloc Québécois urges the government to go much further and to improve overall oversight of foreign investment, with a view to preserving our head offices, our economic leverage and our control over our resources, which Bill C-34 does not do. I would therefore ask the House to consider a new bill providing for a more complete reform of the Investment Canada Act in this regard. We tried to do it in committee because no one had thought of it when Bill C‑34 was created.

Unfortunately for us, the government restricted possible amendments to the sole issue of foreign investment as it relates to national security, which is important, yes, but limited. If we could have improved one thing, that would have been a good pick. However, we were unable to go as far as adding a new provision. While this is very unfortunate, I have high hopes that a new bill could be introduced.

(1145) I think there was even some degree of consensus around the table that the government missed an opportunity to review the thresholds to which mergers and acquisitions must be subject, particularly when it comes to guaranteeing that foreign investments will have a net benefit for Canada. That is an essential condition for everyone who is interested in foreign investment. We support Bill C‑34 , but we will continue to demand loud and clear that the government introduce a new bill to examine and review the other provisions of the Investment Canada Act.

The federal government's blind spot is its failure to protect our economic levers, a critical element that is often overshadowed by more immediate concerns. The data set out in the annual report from the department's investment division, which was tabled in Parliament in October, present an alarming reality that is getting worse as the years go by. Of the 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion that were submitted last year, only 24 of them would have been considered to have national security implications had this bill been in effect at the time.

Everything we are talking about right now would have an impact on only about 2% of projects. That is far from nothing, but it is not enough either. The rest, or 1,221 investments, remain subject to the old lax rules with less than 1% of them being subject to a thorough review to assess their true net economic benefit. Each year, more than 97% of investments are not subject to a review. We have a right to question the oversight capacity for transactions.

This gap in the protection of our economic levers stems from the growing fragility of the Canada Investment Act, with an increasingly high review threshold, allowing the vast majority of foreign investments to avoid any substantial assessment of their impact on our economy. It is imperative that the government deal with this blind spot by strengthening the controls and reaffirming its commitment to preserving our economic sovereignty for the long term. Over the years, the Canada Investment Act has been watered down. The threshold for a government review of an investment keeps going up.

Almost all of the investments slip through and the government does not even have the power under the Canada Investment Act to assess whether each investment is beneficial. The current act, introduced in the mid-1980s, assumes that full liberalization of investment is a good thing, that just about any foreign investment, whatever it may be, is beneficial, resulting in the loss of decision-making levers and head offices—weakening Montreal's financial sector in the process—the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers, possible land grabs and the loss of control over our natural resources.

Doing nothing is disastrous. By focusing solely on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. In an economy that is in transition, that is no longer something we can afford, not that we could ever afford it. COVID-19 has also caused us to reflect on many aspects of impacts, including the devaluation of certain head office assets and dependence on supply chains. If we are not producing vaccines, for example, we are dependent on foreign vaccine portfolios. This cost us billions of dollars. I am eager to have this information.

If we had domestic companies that could have been protected, maybe we would still have assets, and it would have cost much less to secure the health of our population. To that end, we invite the government to table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act, not only the part on national security. National security is important, but so is economic security. In particular, the government should significantly lower the threshold beyond which it authorizes foreign investments without a review.

Bill C‑34, which focuses mainly on national security, also raises legitimate concerns for many Quebeckers and Canadians. Although protecting national security is a crucial part of the legislation, it should not overshadow the gradual loss of control over our economy. As a citizen concerned for our economic future, I call on the government to go beyond a simple review of the Investment Canada Act's national security provisions and to adopt a more holistic approach to modernizing the entire act. National security is undeniably a major concern for any government.

However, it is just as important to consider economic security. The economic well-being of the provinces is closely linked to our ability to protect and promote our local industries. The federal government must pave the way for greater recognition of innovation zones and the efforts made by stakeholders in these vital zones.

(1150) For example, Abitibi—Témiscamingue is rich in minerals that are critical to the new economy. We have expertise in this area, and this could put Quebec on the map internationally. Once again, I invite and even encourage the minister and those advising him to recognize our uniqueness and the leaders of my community by working with us to increase economic activity in and around the mines. I also urge them to protect the efforts being made to develop these companies, which are so sought after by foreigners.

The government must act decisively and lower this threshold considerably in order to effectively protect our economic interests. The Bloc Québécois has raised this concern numerous times, and we have conveyed it to the minister and his officials every time the Investment Canada Act came up for discussion. I have personally done so. The current threshold is too high. This means that many potentially sensitive transactions are not being reviewed by the relevant authorities.

Lowering the threshold for foreign investment will enable the government to better control transactions that could have a negative impact on our economy. That does not necessarily mean that all foreign investments should be blocked, but rather that we must be able to carefully evaluate each case and impose conditions, if necessary, to ensure that these investments truly benefit Quebec or the rest of Canada. By modernizing the entire Investment Canada Act, the government can also put in place mechanisms to encourage investment in key sectors of our economy.

Tax incentives, targeted subsidies and other incentives can be used to attract domestic and foreign investment in areas such as technology, R and D, manufacturing and many other vital sectors. The aeronautical field also comes to mind. In addition, modernizing the act can help ensure that foreign investment does not compromise our economic sovereignty by allowing foreign players to take control of our strategic companies. Appropriate control mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that Canadian companies remain under Canadian control and Quebec companies remain under Quebec's control.

This is necessary to protect our interests. It is important to note that the modernization of the Investment Canada Act should not be seen as an isolationist measure, quite the contrary. We recognize the value of international trade and foreign investment in our economy. However, we have a duty to protect our long-term economic interests. In that sense, ownership of our resources is a fundamental issue. The government is responsible for striking a balance between national security and economic security.

By modernizing the Investment Canada Act in a way that takes both of these aspects into consideration, we can guarantee that our economy will remain, strong, competitive and sovereign. I want to dig into the pandemic example a little more because there is something interesting there. Some companies, like Air Transat, lost value. Air Canada was in a similar situation. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology did a study on the Investment Canada Act and its potential repercussions.

I believe that Bill C‑34 is essentially the product of the recommendations that came out of the work we did in committee at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic. One of my concerns back then was potential loss of value due to a major economic factor such as COVID‑19. Given the current inflationary context, we may still be heading for a recession. Interest rates have gone up a lot. We know that the situation with the Canada emergency business account is key to the survival of our SMEs. About 80% of them have not yet started repaying their loans. Many businesses are in danger.

Had we been able to lower the thresholds and provide better protection for these businesses, maybe we could have saved these strategic assets. Based on the overall current context, we believe that lowering the thresholds is still appropriate. Economic growth can never be taken for granted. Lastly, by focusing mainly on national security, Bill C‑34 fails to adequately address the fact that Quebeckers and Canadians are gradually losing control over their own economy.

It is imperative that the government table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act by significantly lowering the foreign investment thresholds, introducing incentives to stimulate domestic and foreign investments in strategic sectors, and protecting our economic sovereignty. As I have said before, national security is important, but so is economic security. Our future depends on it.

(1155) Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have an important question for my colleague. We proposed amendments, including one that would have made it possible to go back to the current act, since, under the new version, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Department of Industry could be the only two entities determining whether an investment would be good or not.

If both ministers are from western Canada, Ontario or the Maritimes, and neither is from Quebec, these two ministers would have absolute power to decide whether an investment is good for Canada without considering the interests of Quebec, assuming proposed investments in Quebec are involved. My colleague mentioned some examples in his speech. Why did my colleague not support the amendment we presented?

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, especially his vigorous defence of Quebec's interests. I do want to recognize that. As an entrepreneur himself, he is aware of the requirements and problems that business owners can encounter. His business might not be a likely target for a foreign buyout right now, but who knows. Maybe one day, with globalization, there may be foreign interests that take over in Rivière‑du‑Loup. The fact remains that the current law has significant limitations.

Should the Conservatives form the next government, I hope they will very quickly table a bill that will address the concerns, particularly about lower thresholds. Protecting our strategic sectors is essential. Obviously, there is the whole issue of transparency. What my colleague is asking me is this: If a minister is not from Quebec, will he have the same ability to defend Quebeckers? That is a perfectly legitimate concern. Quebec's economy is very different. It is built on strategic sectors that often differ from major Canadian sectors. Take aerospace, for example.

Canada has no national aerospace policy, which is totally absurd. It results in untendered projects, such as the purchase of aircraft. Consequently, the Canadian government is not doing its job to protect the Quebec economy.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that Manitoba has a lot in common with Quebec and its industries, such as the aerospace and the pork industries. The other thing we share in common is the fact that we have incredible capabilities and potential. Bill C-34 ensures there are better safeguards for companies, large or small, whether it is Hydro-Québec, Manitoba Hydro or the small company start-ups. Given the changes in technology and AI, our industries need to be protected from foreign investment. This bill modernizes that and brings us that much closer to providing a higher sense of comfort. I would ask if the member agrees.

(1200) [ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

Madam Speaker, I will agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North that our provinces have something in common. I dream of the day when I can go to a Nordiques game in Winnipeg. There is a lot of sharing that we could do. The economy is changing. I think the member for Winnipeg North would be welcome on the committee because the points he has raised would be very useful around the table. I would like to see him get out of the House sometimes, get his hands dirty, and present these amendments in committee.

I feel that the government has indeed done a diligent job, but within the limits imposed on us by the shackles of Bill C‑34 . The law needed to be modernized to meet the realities of a new economy. Right now, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is examining Bill C-27 . I think everyone agrees on the fundamental aspect of data protection for all Quebeckers and Canadians, and especially for children.

However, when it comes to developing AI and protecting our cultural sovereignty—and here I am thinking in particular of Quebec's cultural sovereignty, our French language and our accent, which CBC values so much—we definitely need to modernize this law and go even further. This is also important for protecting our start-ups and emerging companies that have patents and those that are working on and developing AI. We have some very painstaking work to do. I thank the government for its collaboration on Bill C-34.

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue for his excellent, well-researched speech. He provided us with a lot of information. I really appreciated the fact that he talked about the need for transparency. Rona was a particularly striking example for Quebeckers. I think it is important to insist on transparency in relation to the conditions. I would like the member to tell us more about the notion of net benefit. Sometimes, there are conditions related to maintaining jobs, creating jobs and keeping the head office in Quebec. Those are important things.

Could we not think about a long-term net benefit? I am not talking about a commitment of three to six months, but about medium- and long-term commitments.

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie for his comments, which are always cordial but sometimes force us to dig a little deeper. I will answer his question by giving him an example. Strategic critical minerals are a key issue. North American Lithium, a Chinese-owned lithium mine in Abitibi—Témiscamingue went bankrupt. Investissement Québec had shares in this company, which was put back on the market. In the end, an Australian company took it over, mainly for export purposes, and established partnerships with Tesla, among others.

With regard to long-term strategic needs, it is absolutely critical that Quebec own this resource. Right now, when major investments are made, like the ones the federal government is making in Stellantis, GM and Northvolt, there is no guarantee that supplies will come from Quebec or Canadian supply chains. Will GM vehicles and others have lithium from Quebec or Canada in their batteries? There is no guarantee of that. The purpose is precisely to consider the long term.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that we can cut five to 20 years from government investment if we develop the downstream supply chain from the mine and bring processing plants to Abitibi-Témiscamingue, like Sayona did. I acknowledge and thank Sayona for doing so, but it is important to have a facility near the mine to process the minerals that are needed at every stage, in other words, from the anode, cathode, chemistry, cell and other steps to the battery and then the automobile. There are economic and environmental benefits.

To respond to the question and concern of my colleague, this needs to be done in Quebec, because that is where the value-added is developed and there is a long-term vision.

(1205) Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my enthusiastic colleague. His speeches are always very lively and well researched. It is obvious that he really knows his stuff when it comes to anything related to innovation, especially the people who have expertise in his region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I want to come back to the question asked earlier by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup . I was rather confused, even surprised, upon hearing his comments.

He has been a member of the Canadian Parliament for a number of years and, all of a sudden, he is worried that having ministers from outside Quebec could put Quebec at a disadvantage, because economic interests could be concentrated outside Quebec. We in the Bloc Québécois have had the answer to this question for a very long time. For us, the only way to truly defend the interests of Quebec is to be independent.

I wonder if my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue could share his thoughts on defending our head offices in Quebec and our economic interests, which are often at odds with the economic interests of the oil and gas sector in the rest of Canada.

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent question. I wish there were a reporter in the House to hear what a staunch defender I am of the interests of my region, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, just like my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou . Quebec sovereignty essentially boils down to three things. Obviously, one is the ability to collect our own taxes and reinvest them in Quebec's economic priorities, including the battery industry's transformation. Another is the ability to sign our own treaties, as a member.

This would include environmental treaties, which the Conservatives are obviously going to brush aside. The last is to pass all our laws based on our national interests, like the Act respecting Investissement Québec.

[ English ]

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise here today once again to speak to Bill C-34 , which would update the Investment Canada Act. I spoke to this bill on Monday. It is now Thursday and not much has happened in the interim. We did consider a report stage amendment and voted on it, an amendment that would have taken some of the powers vested in the minister in this new act and moved them to cabinet. That amendment was defeated, so we are basically back to where we were when it came out of committee at report stage. I will therefore be repeating some of my comments from Monday, naturally.

This act is designed to do two main things. It is designed to ensure that foreign investments in Canada have a net benefit for Canadians and that foreign investments are not detrimental to our national security. As I said previously, many Canadians will know this act from its first iteration, back in the seventies, as the Foreign Investment Review Act. It was brought in at that time because there was a rash of foreign takeovers, predominantly American takeovers, of Canadian companies. American companies were moving in as the economy was booming in the fifties and sixties.

There was money for these companies to expand. They moved north and started to buy up Canadian companies. I remember that at that time, to go way back, there was real concern in Canada about this trend of foreign companies taking over Canadian companies, sometimes moving their operations entirely out of the country, sometimes just keeping them as branch plants of larger multinationals. The Foreign Investment Review Act was brought in then to deal with this situation. It reviewed these transactions as they took place, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency approved about 90% of them.

Canadians are open to investment. We know that we need investment to grow our economy, but 10% of those applications were turned down by the Foreign Investment Review Agency in the seventies and early eighties. That brought criticism to the agency by both Liberals and Conservatives, who thought we should be open for investment and should not be turning down some of these applications. In 1984, Brian Mulroney brought in this act, the Investment Canada Act, to replace the Foreign Investment Review Agency with Investment Canada, of course saying he wanted to welcome foreign investment.

True to his word, under the Mulroney government, the new Investment Canada entity did not turn down any applications for foreign takeovers. The Liberal governments that followed Mulroney's, those of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, had the same record, with not one application being blocked. The Harper government was a different story. Harper blocked the sale of British Columbia-based MacDonald, Dettwiler to the American company Alliance based on both financial benefits to Canadians and the critical technology argument.

On the other hand, in 2012, the Harper government allowed the $15-billion sale of Canadian oil company Nexen to the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, owned by the Chinese government, and the $6-billion sale of Progress Energy to Malaysia-based Petronas. Then, on the same day, the Harper government changed the Investment Canada Act