44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 6, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is in relation to the amendment we are debating now at report stage. We are dealing with section 15, which basically takes cabinet out of the beginning of the process and says the minister only has to go back to cabinet at the end of the process if a national security review says there is a problem. If not, the minister does not have to go back.
Does the minister not believe that we get better decision-making by having all cabinet colleagues involved in the decision-making, not just an individual industry minister making that choice?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister on his intervention.
Bill C‑34 is certainly well intentioned. We also recognize the work that was done in committee, which enabled us to add to the bill the concept of sensitive sectors, including intellectual property and data banks that contain personal information.
However, the bill is still incomplete and that is the problem. If we were to apply the new rules proposed in Bill C‑34 to the projects submitted in 2022, only 24 of the 1,255 projects would be reviewed. That is not even 2% of all the projects. I would like my colleague to explain whether he agrees that we need to lower the review threshold to cast a wider net and have better rules that will make it possible to review all the projects so as to protect the local economy and prevent any loopholes in foreign investments.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives put forth several amendments, two of which were rejected. One would have required the minister to conduct a national review by changing “may” to “shall” to ensure a review is triggered whenever the review threshold is met. The other would have made the act retroactive.
How does the minister expect the government to ensure our national security is in place if we cannot go back to see which companies got in under the wire and may be doing Canadian companies harm?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech. Perhaps he could explain further the extent to which the government has failed to take Canada's national security seriously and necessitated this. The review is long overdue and the threat environment has changed, but this bill, if passed, would in some ways force the government to do things that it ought to have had enough sense to do in the first place.
Could the member comment?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of undertaking reviews, the amendment that Conservatives put forward was specifically targeted at countries that we do not have trade agreements with. For those countries that we do have agreements with, and that includes the European Union and most European countries, that automatic review would not apply.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/6/23 3:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like you, I have been very patient, listening to commentaries. You, a while back, very clearly established that you had already received enough information to make some sort of a ruling, pending a review of the situation.
Members continued to stand up, which is a challenge of the ruling you have made as Speaker. I would suggest that people just tone it down and allow the Speaker to do his job.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji. I can see some work has been done on this legislation and that there were amendments made at committee. I see an amendment to clause 7 regarding the review of proposed investments to be made by a foreign entity, and I see that this review would only happen as long as the minister had recommended it to the Governor in Council.
I wonder if the member agrees and if he could share with us whether he thinks this process is sufficient, given the great concerns he shared regarding reviews.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not think so. The difficulty is that, yes, there would be improved transparency once one has a review, but what would trigger a review in an issue like that of Paper Excellence, which I have referenced? How wide is the net cast, and when could we take concerns forward?
I wish we had more time. I will vote for Bill C-34; let me make that clear. It is an improvement and would modernize the Investment Canada Act. I think I would like to also vote for one of the Conservative amendments, to ensure that cabinet would retain control in the reviews. In any case, I will vote for it, but I am very concerned, because the innovative ways in which Canadian corporations are taken over by foreign interests do not trigger the usual notion of national security but can be very significant for national sovereignty. That is my concern.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the amendment we proposed at committee would have allowed for a takeover by any foreign hostile country to be reviewed immediately. That would have been looked at.
It is again the whole notion of removing the mandatory cabinet review on national security issues. Does the member not feel that those members from the Quebec caucus who are members of cabinet should not have the right to review such sensitive information and sensitive matters when those decisions are being made in Canada?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the amendments in committee that was defeated by the Liberals said that any takeover in Canada by a corporation whose headquarters are resident in Beijing would be automatically reviewed. The Liberals voted against that for some reason, perhaps because Beijing's government is most admired by the Prime Minister.
I am wondering whether the member could comment about what would possess Liberals to oppose an amendment that would force an automatic review.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, an amendment was promised at committee that all companies headquartered in China would be subject to an automatic review. The Liberals defeated that amendment. Could the member explain why?
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
