With regard to the Centre for Rural Economic Development, since its founding: (a) how much has been paid out in bonuses and performance awards, broken down by year; (b) how many employees received bonuses or performance awards each year; and (c) what are the details of the $400,000 listed, under the standard object 0306-subscriptions and data, in the government’s response to Order Paper Question Q-1449, including, for each contract, the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services? With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all studies, completed or ongoing, which were conducted by or on behalf of CMHC, related to taxes on primary residences, including, for each, (i) the amount spent, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) the start and end dates, (iv) the findings, (v) the website address where details are located, if applicable? With regard to the implementation of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) what is the status of the required guidance for applicants to the authorization regime established by Bill C-41, including (i) which departments and agencies, and specifically which directorates, sectors, and branches, have been involved in drafting guidance for organizations wishing to submit an application, (ii) what privacy concerns have civil society organizations raised with government officials during consultations on guidance documents and what has been the government’s response to these concerns, (iii) was the deputy minister responsible for international humanitarian assistance or international development policy included in the consultations, and, if so, in what capacity; (b) what funds have been allocated under the new system, including (i) to which organizations, (ii) for work in which countries; (c) how many authorization applications has the government (i) made for its own activities, (ii) received from outside government, (iii) approved, and for which countries, (iv) sought for its own work in Afghanistan; and (d) what is the current list of countries and sub-regions for which an authorization is deemed necessary and which deputy ministers, including their departments and agencies, are involved in developing this list? With regard to the government's funding assistance for the electric battery plant with Volkswagen Canada in St. Thomas, Ontario: what is the contracted construction schedule of the battery plant, including the anticipated day each stage of development will begin, until production commences? With regard to the April 21, 2023, news release by the Office of the Prime Minister on the Volkswagen battery plant in St Thomas, Ontario, (a) how was the estimated return on the investment calculated for the announced $200 billion generated by the battery plant; (b) what is the projected (i) final value on investment, (ii) initial value of investment, (iii) final cost of investment; and (c) how was each figure in (a) and (b) calculated, including the methodology and figures used for each calculation? With regard to the government's announcement related to the electric battery plant with Stellantis Canada in Windsor, Ontario: what is the contracted construction schedule of the battery plant, including the anticipated day that each stage of development will begin, until battery production commences? With regard to the April 21, 2023, news release by the Office of the Prime Minister on the Volkswagen battery plant in St. Thomas, Ontario: (a) what methodology was used to calculate the announced 3,000 direct jobs generated by the battery plant, including the formula and figures used in the methodology; (b) what is the explanation for how each formula or figure used in (a) was arrived at; (c) what methodology was used to calculate the announced 30,000 indirect jobs generated by the battery plant, including the formula and figures used in the methodology; and (d) what is the explanation for how each formula or figure used in (c) was arrived at? With regard to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project between Strathcona County, Alberta, and Burnaby, British Columbia, since 2019: (a) what are the details of all delays (construction, environmental, cultural, safety) related to the pipeline expansion, including, for each, the (i) reason, (ii) length, (iii) estimated cost as a result of the delay, (iv) date of the event or incident that caused the delay? With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) oversight of Canadian visa offices located outside of Canada: (a) has IRCC received allegations or reports of corruption or bribery committed by locally-engaged staff toward applicants for Canadian travel documents in the past 10 calendar years; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what is the total number of allegations or reports (A) received, (B) investigated, (C) rejected, (D) resolved, broken down by office location, (ii) what actions has IRCC taken, whether solely or in collaboration with its partners, to investigate and address these allegations or reports; (c) does IRCC have internal controls, policies, procedures, or processes to specifically address the risk of corruption and bribery by locally-engaged staff toward applicants for Canadian travel documents; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the details of such controls, policies, procedures or processes? With regard to the smuggling of contraband in federal penitentiaries: has the government consulted or sought external advice within the past five years, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) date, (iii) value of the contract, if applicable, (iv) description of the parameters for the advice or consultation sought, (v) description of the advice or information received? With regard to the government's approach to jamming cellular signals in federal penitentiaries: has the government consulted or sought any external advice related to the topic in the past five years, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) date, (iii) value of the contract, if applicable, (iv) description of the parameters for the advice or consultation sought, (v) advice or information received? With regard to the new passport design: (a) how much was spent on the graphic design of the new passport; (b) which vendors were contracted or sub-contracted to do the graphic design work; and (c) how much was each vendor in (b) paid for graphic design work associated with the new passport? With regard to the National Joint Council’s revised Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (IPGHD) and the Shelter Cost Differential methodology (SCD) that came into effect on August 1, 2023, broken down by province or territory: (a) what is the total number of employees who (i) experienced decreases in their SCD payments, (ii) were disqualified from SCD payments entirely; (b) how many employees were disqualified from the SCD because they own their home; and (c) does the government expect to see spending reductions as a result of the revised SCD methodology?

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, 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.

There is a little flexibility during the speeches, of course. I remind members who are getting up to speak on bills before the House that it needs to be relevant to the bill. They should mention either the bill or what is in the bill. The hon. member for Provencher.

Madam Speaker, that is very good advice. I was paving the pathway to this bill on how this carbon tax is negatively impacting investment in Canada. The Liberals today had an opportunity to reduce the cost of living for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and failed to do that. They were joined by the Bloc. The Bloc members had an opportunity to speak for Quebeckers to make sure their cost of living was also being reduced and they failed to do that. The members for Winnipeg North, Winnipeg South, Winnipeg South Centre, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, who are Liberal members, could have reduced the cost of home heating for their constituents, but voted against this motion to expand the carbon tax pause to all Canadians. It is very disappointing that their constituents cannot even count on them to represent them adequately here in the House. Let me now dive headlong into my speech and carry on with that. We have seen before where the current government subjects a bill to being discussed, even this critical one here, and this is something we should have seen long ago. It requires legislation of course on the whole issue of Invest in Canada, but this legislation presented by the government lands so far from what is needed, so far from the reality of the problem that it seeks to address, that it is really difficult to see a common-sense solution here. This is the kind of stuff we continually get from the Liberals. We see this on their approach to the environment, immigration, the economy, guns, drugs and the list goes on. There is a common series of steps the Liberals go through when they encounter these various problems. First, they deny there is a problem. Once that stops working for them, then they start to blame the Conservatives. Then they start blaming Canadians. Finally, when they run of out people to blame, once the PM's wizards and the PMO finally recognize that something needs to be done before even the CBC starts dumping on them, then they put something like this forward. However, it takes all of those things to happen before the Liberal government takes steps to address real issues. When they do finally present something, it is unremarkable, as members will see later in my speech. For years, the Communist dictatorship of Beijing has been taking advantage of Canadians, of our weak acquisition laws, Canadian industry and our proprietary technology. Why is that? Part of it seems to be the bizarre fascination that the Prime Minister has with China. We all remember his comment about admiring Beijing's basic dictatorship, though at the time few thought he was naive enough to believe that and throw open the doors to Beijing, but it turns out that he actually has that fascination. When the former environment minister visited China in 2018, she too gushed over China's leadership on climate change and its ability to “scale like no other country”. In her address to Boston's Northeastern University this past May, the Deputy Prime Minister “said the fundamental question of our time is: 'Does capitalist democracy still work?'” I think it would be better if the minister were here working for Canadians, but that is what she said. She stated: That is the question being posed around kitchen tables, in my country and this one, as parents wonder if our children can count on capitalist democracy’s essential promise of a future more prosperous than our present. These comments, of course, raise the spectre of what she considers a viable alternative. That would be China's basic dictatorship perhaps. To read between the lines, her thought process seems to be that Canada's current economic woes are not the result of her government's incompetent management, but rather the fault of capitalism and democracy. As one journalist recently noted, if we are talking about what passes for capitalism and democracy in Justin Trudeau's Canada, not unlike those of China, where capitalism has come to be characterized by close—

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is sometimes what happens when members are just reading speeches that are given to them that are written by staffers who perhaps do not know the rules of the House, but the member just said the Prime Minister's name in the context of it being “the [Prime Minister]'s Canada”. Perhaps the member should inform those who are writing his speeches how the rules of the House work so that this does not happen again.

I am sure the hon. member cannot prove for sure who has written the speech. The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister's name. I would ask him to please be careful and ensure that he is not mentioning the name of parliamentarians who sit in the House. I know that does slip from time to time and I think it is done on both sides of the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you ask the member for Kingston and the Islands to withdraw his comment. I know it is the practice on one side of the House to just read canned speeches, but I know this member, and I know he wrote that speech. I know he writes all his speeches, just as most of our members do. I would ask the Speaker to kindly ask him to withdraw that comment, which was meant to put down one of my colleagues on this side of the House.

I have indicated that hon. members should be careful with what they put in their speeches, and they should also be careful when saying whether somebody has done something or has not done something. I am not sure if the hon. deputy government House leader would like to rise to apologize for that. I understand he is not willing to do so. I would ask all members to please be careful as it causes disorder in the House, which is not the way we want to function here. The hon. member for Provencher.

Madam Speaker, to carry on, in a so-called capitalist system where the Prime Minister picks the winners and the losers and stacks the deck to ensure a select few friends get rich while everyone else is pushed to become reliant on government for everything from housing to basic income, the general trend, and I believe the endgame of the government, will inevitably collapse. Likewise, so would a democracy that has been left unprotected and consistently undermined by the actions of the Prime Minister and his friends in Beijing. Beijing had spies, scientists with ties to China's bioweapons program, in our National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, which is one of our most secure facilities. Now, they are nowhere to be found. The Prime Minister took the former Speaker of the House, the person who sat in Madam Speaker's chair, to court and sued that person to prevent the truth about what was happening at the Winnipeg National Microbiology Lab with those Chinese spies from coming out. There is hacking and espionage against Canadian infrastructure, academia and industry. The list goes on and on. It is always China. What has the government done so far? In eight years, what has the Liberal government done? It has done nothing up until today, unless of course we include cash for access with Chinese billionaires and donations to the Trudeau Foundation. However, now the Liberals have a plan, which is Bill C-34. What is the solution government members have put forward? Are they proposing to ban Communist Chinese acquisitions of Canadian companies or to take China to the World Trade Organization? Would they expel Beijing-run spies and state police from Canada? No, they would not. Their solution is more government, more bureaucracy and specifically for more power concentrated in the minister. This would not be the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of National Defence, but with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. It is bizarre. One cannot make this stuff up. In almost case with the government, it is the same minister who created the problem tasked with fixing the problem. In this case, we have the minister of industry, who I actually like. I wish him all the best in his leadership bid. In 2017, before his time, the minister of industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of B.C.-based Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by Hytera Communications, which is owned by the People's Republic of China. Then, in December of 2022, under the former public safety minister, the RCMP awarded a contract to supply sensitive hardware for its communication systems to Sinclair Technologies, which was then owned by a Beijing company and major supporter to China's public security ministry. Then it was revealed, also in December of 2022, that since 2017, the CBSA had also been using communications equipment and technology from Hytera Communications. Hytera has been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States and has been banned by President Biden from doing business in the U.S., but it has not been banned here in Canada, not under the Liberal government. How did the minister respond to these acquisitions? He thought it was cool. Let us look at another example. In March 2021, the minister updated and enhanced guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises, but in January 2022, he failed to follow his own guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of Canadian lithium company Neo Lithium Corp by, once again, Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining Group, without a national security review taking place. Then, in November of 2022, the minister ordered three Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three critical mineral firms, but guess who he forgot to mention? It was Neo Lithium. The list goes on. I am not sure what is more astounding: that it is always China with the Liberal government or that the minister can put forward this legislation with a straight face. How can he expect the House or Canadians to trust him to solve this problem when his own lack of oversight has been so instrumental in creating the problem? As I wrap up, I will say that the member for Kingston and the Islands always asks whether there is nothing positive in the legislation, and if we cannot say one positive thing. Even he needs reassurance that the Liberals are not completely dropping the ball. Therefore, I am happy to inform him and his—