Madam Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the Liberals' so-called international assistance policy, which has shown a lack of respect for cultural values and the autonomy of women in the developing world. It does so by supporting organizations that violate local laws at the expense of international development priorities, such as clean water and basic nutrition. The Liberals' approach to international development has been criticized by the Auditor General for failing to meet measured results. The petitioners note that the Muskoka Initiative involved historic investments in the well-being of women and girls around the world; this initiative emphasized value for money and ensured that investments in the priorities identified by local women were made. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to align its international development spending with the approach taken by the Muskoka Initiative. It should focus on ensuring that international development dollars meet the basic needs of vulnerable women around the world, rather than pushing an ideological agenda that conflicts with local values in developing countries, and securing measured outcomes.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When members present multiple petitions, it is great and wonderful, but it is much appreciated if they can keep them as concise as possible. I understand other people want to present petitions.

I want to remind members that they are to provide a brief statement. I know that the hon. member has tabled many petitions, but they have not been very lengthy. He is doing what he is supposed to be doing, so I will allow him to continue. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

Madam Speaker, another petition that I have to present today is from Canadians across the country who want to note that it is established that the risk of violence against women increases while they are pregnant. Currently, in Canadian law, the injury or death of preborn children as victims of crime is not considered as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. Canada has no legal protection for preborn children, including the victims of violent crimes. 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. Therefore, the folks who have signed this petition are calling on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to legislate the abuse of pregnant women and the infliction of harm on a preborn child as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code.

Madam Speaker, this is a petition for the Minister of Transport. Municipalities, property associations and thousands of individuals who are also residents of Ontario are concerned by the damage, including environmental, social, economic and public safety impacts, that unregulated float homes could potentially cause to our waterways in Ontario. The problem is that there is a lack of consistency between provinces. These structures, in British Columbia, have been classified as float homes and not vessels. Therefore, petitioners are respectfully requesting that the Department of Transport, through the Minister of Transport, classify both existing and new float homes within Ontario as float homes and not vessels in a manner that is consistent with what was determined for the province of British Columbia in 2001. The petitioners look forward to a response from the government.

Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to a petition that is asking for the Department of National Defence to stop using pigs for Canadian military trauma training. The petitioners say that the continued use of these piglets is problematic because it does not accurately train soldiers as they need to be trained; human patient simulators, which accurately mimic human anatomy and physiology, are more applicable. The undersigned have asked the Minister of National Defence to bring an end to the use of animals in military trauma training and replace them with more advanced, human-relevant and less-expensive human patient simulators.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1710, 1712, 1715 to 1719, 1724, 1725, 1732, 1733, 1735 and 1740.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1711, 1713, 1714, 1720 to 1723, 1726 to 1731, 1734, 1736 to 1739 and 1741 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately in an electronic format.

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

With regard to the statement in the government’s response to Order Paper Question Q-1449 on the Centre for Rural Economic Development that “In 2022, the Minister of Rural Economic Development participated in more than 100 stakeholder engagement sessions across Canada”: what are the details of each meeting, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the type of meeting (virtual, in person), (iv) the list of attendees, (v) the number of attendees, (vi) the titles of all attendees representing the government at the meeting, including ministers, (vii) the advertised topic, (viii) the list of individuals invited, (ix) the date the invitations were sent out, (x) whether the public was invited, and, if so, how was the public notified? With regard to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's trip to China to attend the annual general meeting of the China Council for International Co-operation on Environment and Development: (a) what was the minister's detailed itinerary on the trip; and (b) what are the details of all meetings attended by the minister, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) location, (iv) list of attendees, including the organization represented by each attendee, (v) agenda items, (vi) topics discussed? With regard to government infrastructure funding, since 2016: (a) what was the total amount provided to municipalities each year; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by individual municipality; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by funding program? With regard to convictions under the Fisheries Act that have resulted in fines since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all fines issued by fishery officers, including the (i) province, (ii) federal riding of the incident, if known, (iii) location, (iv) monetary amount issued, (v) monetary amount paid, (vi) date of the issuance, (vii) date of the payment, (viii) summary of the infraction? With regard to the government's Oil to Heat Pump Affordability Program: (a) how many applications for funding have been (i) received, (ii) granted; (b) how many heat pumps have been installed through the program; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by province or territory? With regard to the real estate arm of the Canada Lands Company (CLC): (a) how many residential housing units has CLC built since January 1, 2019, broken down by city; and (b) what are the details of the land owned by CLC, broken down by city, including the (i) zoning and number of acres in each zoned category, (ii) number of potential residential lots, (iii) number of acres in areas considered serviced versus unserviced? With regard to investment tax credits granted under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development Program between 2016 and 2023, in total and broken down by year: (a) how much has been distributed as part of the program; (b) how many applications were (i) received, (ii) granted; and (c) what is the breakdown for how much was distributed by (i) province or territory, (ii) type of research (basic, applied, experimental development, etc.)? With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's monitoring of access to clean drinking water on reserve: (a) what service standards are established by the department regarding the monitoring and approval of water treatment systems, including (i) visits to communities by department officials, (ii) timelines to approve and review systems, (iii) delivery of necessary parts or equipment; and (b) what is the total number of dedicated staff within the department working with communities to assess drinking water conditions? With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's (ISC) work to provide clean drinking water on reserve: (a) by what date does ISC expect all existing long-term boil water advisories to end; (b) how many communities are currently under short-term boil water advisories for a period of (i) less than one month, (ii) between one and three months, (iii) between three and six months, (iv) between six and nine months, (v) between nine and 12 months; (c) broken down by province and territory, what is the total number of communities that lack clean drinking water due to the (i) lack of piping from water treatment plants, (ii) contaminated pipe or contaminated water treatment equipment; and (d) broken down by province and territory, what is the total number of communities that deliver clean water to residents through (i) cisterns or wells, (ii) water delivery trucks? With regard to emergency evacuations for First Nations communities due to climate-related events, broken down by fiscal year and First Nation since 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount of financial assistance provided to First Nations governments; and (b) what is the total amount provided to the First Nations for natural disaster mitigation and prevention efforts? With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the prolonged visa application wait times for applicants from francophone countries: (a) what are the mean and median wait times to process a permanent residency application from francophone countries between 2020 and 2023, broken down by country, including, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Algeria, Chad, Djibouti, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Niger, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo, Haiti, Martinique, and Lebanon; (b) which of these countries have average visa application wait times above the IRCC recommended guidelines; (c) how many applications for permanent residency did the IRCC process from francophone countries between 2020 and 2023, broken down by country, and how many were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected; (d) what are the mean and median processing times for applicants that filed for permanent residency in (i) French, (ii) English; and (e) does the IRCC currently have plans to recommend additional visa application centers in francophone countries, and, if so, which countries? With regard to the emissions resulting from flights on official government trips taken by ministers between June 21, 2023 and September 18, 2023: what are the details of each trip, including, for each, the (i) name and title of the minister, (ii) date, (iii) origin, (iv) destination, (v) purpose of the trip, (vi) distance flown, (vii) estimated emissions resulting from trip? With regard to the Rapid Housing Initiative: how much funding has been provided to date, broken down by municipality? With regard to the government's policies related to controlled substances: (a) has there been any direction, with respect to charges of possession of a controlled substance or the refraining of such charges, to any federal prosecutors or agents since November 4, 2015, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) date, (ii) direction given, (iii) person who gave the direction; and (b) what are the current policies with respect to charging someone for possession of a controlled substance and when to refrain from doing so? With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since May 1, 2023: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or an estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel? With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since May 1, 2023: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or an estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel? 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? With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) and the Critical Injury Benefit (CIB): (a) how many times and to how many individuals has the CIB been granted; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of injury; (c) how many times has the CIB been granted solely for post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental health conditions; (d) are file numbers attached to each instance where the CIB has been granted for mental health conditions, and, if not, why not; (e) on what date did veterans with mental health conditions become eligible to apply for the CIB; (f) what is the web address for the CIB application that is available for the public to download; (g) where is the CIB application available on the My VAC Account portal for veterans; (h) does VAC plan to update the CIB application form for veterans applying solely for injuries to mental health, and, if so, when will such changes be implemented; and (i) are the Veterans Review and Appeal Board decisions related to the CIB available for the public to review, and, if so, how does the public access them? With regard to policies, directives, standards and guidelines enforced by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat concerning people management, broken down by department or agency: (a) on what date was the last staffing review completed and presented to the deputy minister and senior managers; (b) what were the conclusions of the last staffing review, including the (i) number of vacancies, (ii) future staffing needs of the department, (iii) ability to fill existing and future job vacancies; (c) did the department hire third-party management firms to provide recommendations on people management; and (d) what are the details of all contracts with management firms in (c), including the (i) name of the company contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) expected deliverables, (iv) titles of the final the reports, summaries, or recommendation lists, (v) deadlines?

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

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act. This bill would improve our ability to respond to changing circumstances that affect Canada's economic well-being and to remain vigilant in upholding our national security. More specifically, I want to focus on how our government's efforts to modernize the Investment Canada Act would help protect the intangible assets of Canadian businesses, which are the cornerstone of economic growth in a 21st-century economy. As all members are fully aware, intangible assets, such as intellectual property, trade secrets and data, are of immense importance to our economic vitality and prosperity. As such, our country and other open economies are increasingly being targeted by hostile actors, which pose a threat to our national security, continued economic well-being and prosperity. Consequently, our government is taking timely action to respond to evolving threats to our economic well-being and national security. Foreign investment certainly fuels innovation and assists businesses to succeed and grow. However, I want to emphasize that we should not compromise when safeguarding Canada's economic interests. As members will note, we should be laser-focused on striking the right balance between attracting foreign investment to help Canadian businesses grow and remaining mindful of the need to protect our intangible assets and intellectual property. Highly innovative Canadian companies are at the forefront of developing new technologies, such as quantum computing, biotechnology, medical devices and innovative clean energy. Attracting investments to actualize innovation is complex and challenging, yet the safety and protection of Canadians is our government's number one priority. Canada must have a robust and flexible tool kit to protect Canada's interests from national security threats, which come in many forms. We heard from multiple witnesses on this topic in the context of hearings arranged by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Those witnesses shared their expertise to highlight that hostile state and non-state actors are increasingly pursuing strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property for uses that are incompatible with our national interest and economic outlook. We also heard witnesses signal how foreign investment can be a conduit for foreign influence activities that seek to weaken our long-term economic prosperity. Around the world, foreign investment regimes are getting finetuned to better incorporate national security considerations. Our international partners are taking action to respond to shifting technological and geopolitical threats by amending their investment screening regimes. The U.S. overhauled its foreign direct investment laws in 2018 by adding new types of transactions to government review. For the first time ever, the U.S. also mandated notifications in transactions involving critical technologies. These regulations came into effect in February 2020. Similarly, Australia updated its regime in January 2021 to grant its government the discretion to require mandatory notification for transactions with a national security dimension. The same can be said for the United Kingdom, which introduced a new stand-alone regime for national security and investments in January 2021. The U.K. established a mandatory obligation to secure clearance for transactions where control of a business was acquired in 17 sensitive sectors, to be secured before the transaction is completed. The U.K. also introduced legislation that allows the government to impose interim orders while the review is being conducted. I reference such changes in the U.S., Australia and the U.K. to make a simple point: Canada's national security review authorities under the ICA have been in place since 2009. Quite often, changes introduced by our allies are meant to ensure that they catch up to where we already are. Given our track record, Bill C-34 is the latest in a series of actions our government is taking to make our regime more robust, responsive and flexible. I would remind members that in March 2021 we updated the national security guidelines to advise that investments involving sensitive personal data, sensitive technologies and critical minerals, as well as investments by state-owned or state-influenced investors, would face enhanced security. The next step came in 2022 when we issued a new policy for review of foreign investments originating from Russia. In 2022, we also introduced a new voluntary filing mechanism for investors intending to obtain greater regulatory certainty with the same statutory deadlines as a mandatory filing. In addition, we now have five years to review and adopt measures regarding an investment in the absence of a voluntary filing. As members can see, Bill C-34 is just the latest effort to ensure Canada's foreign investment review regime represents the gold standard. Fundamentally, our government believes that an effective investment review regime must adapt to changing world dynamics and business practices. To respond to the evolving and accelerating threat environment, now is the right time to modernize key aspects of the ICA. Bill C-34 would better align Canada with our international partners and allies. One of the ways our regime would align more closely with allies includes introducing the new requirement for prior notification of certain investments. This particular amendment would ensure that Canada has greater oversight over investments in certain sensitive sectors, especially when they give investors material access to assets and non-public technical information, such as cutting-edge intellectual property and trade secrets, once the investment is finalized. It would enable the government to prevent potentially irreparable damage. Investors would have to provide notice of the transaction within the timelines specified in the regulations. A second important change is that it would provide our government the authority to impose interim conditions on an investment during the course of a national security review to prevent potential national security injury taking place during the time the review is being conducted. Another amendment would allow Canada to share case-specific information with international allies to support national security assessments. Finally, the ICA includes a provision to allow for closed material proceedings. As such, the act would introduce new rules that would allow for more effective judicial review of national review decisions by allowing the use of sensitive information, while also protecting such commercially sensitive information from disclosure. Ultimately, these significant amendments would ensure that Canada's tool kit evolves and adapts to the changing global threat landscape. It is for these reasons that I believe the House should support this bill and these new amendments. Where national security is concerned, we should never hesitate to take decisive action.

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about some of our allies. He spoke about Australia and the U.K. and how they are moving toward our system of examination of these matters on an international basis. Does he have any information whether those two very important allies actually have a process where one minister determines whether one gets past a security review in those countries? Frankly, that is the worst part of this bill. Can he comment on that, please?

Madam Speaker, as the member is fully aware, I did make reference to three countries but the purpose of those references was to say that our regulations are to be fine-tuned every so often. The reason for that, as I tried to emphasize in my comments, is that we face a world that has a changing global threat landscape. In this particular case there are a few aspects of this bill that would require that we draw on the expertise of not just one minister but several departments. However, that is a good thing because we need to make sure that the regime we currently have in place is robust and flexible and will allow our authorities to thoroughly protect Canadians.

Madam Speaker, foreign investment has generally been based on the size of the transaction and/or the sector in the transaction. It has now come to the point where size or sector does not actually matter, in terms of security review and the sensitivities involved. Small companies can create security difficulties for Canada. Sectors one would never have thought of can create difficulties for Canada, particularly dual-use sectors. I am interested in the hon. member's comments as to whether this bill addresses this dramatic change in what should be available to or reviewed by the Canadian authorities.

Madam Speaker, yes, my hon. colleague has rightly emphasized that our regime, as a general rule, has thresholds in place that allow us to screen investments coming in. In other instances, it is sectoral because there are various sectors of the economy that are vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, if you will. These have been ongoing changes. I made reference to changes that we made in 2021 and 2022. This does not mean that if we bring in some of these new provisions, they are necessarily replacing all of the old safeguards that were there previously. Our intention has always been to have the gold standard when it comes to screening investments coming in. This will ensure that we will continue to lead the way in having a good, robust system in place, which does evolve as security threats around the world evolve.

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House. Before I really dive into my speech on Bill C-34, I just want to acknowledge Marilyn Bouw, the president of the Springfield Agricultural Society, for hosting my wife and me at their annual banquet. She is a tremendous advocate and supporter of agricultural communities in her riding of Springfield and broader. I also want to mention Mayor Myron Dyck from Niverville, Manitoba, who also hosted my wife and me this weekend, together with his wife Shari, at the Niverville Heritage Centre annual fundraising banquet. The Niverville Heritage Centre does a tremendous amount of good work in the community, especially supporting our vulnerable seniors. I thank Niverville Heritage Centre very much. The interesting thing about what came up this past weekend at both of those events was the issue of the carbon tax. Folks at both venues talked to me about the carbon tax vote that we had here earlier in the House today. They said, “How is it going to go, Mr. Falk? Is this a confidence vote? Will this actually bring us into an election?” We know that the Liberals want to quadruple the carbon tax and we know that, already, Canadians right across the country are experiencing significant increases to the cost of living and affordability is top of mind for almost all Canadians. They asked me—

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am struggling to find any kind of link between what the member is talking about and the bill that is before the House right now. We have had a number of opportunities to discuss the subject that he is trying to discuss but, right now, we are talking about this bill. Perhaps you could encourage him to get back to the subject at hand.