44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 9, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/9/23 10:28:44 a.m.
- Watch
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.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/9/23 10:29:23 a.m.
- Watch
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.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
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.
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—
1842 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
639 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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: Would the member like to hear my answer?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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—
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, winter has arrived, and the NDP-Liberal government has left Canadians out in the cold. The Prime Minister's carbon tax carve-out of home heating oil leaves 97% of Canadians without relief, including 90% of Saskatchewan homes heated with natural gas. After eight long years, he is once again pitting region against region and Canadian against Canadian.
The common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, offers a solution to this divisiveness through long overdue carbon tax relief for farmers. By axing the tax from the on-farm use of natural gas and propane, farmers would save almost $1 billion between now and 2030.
The alternative is unacceptable. The coalition's plan to quadruple the carbon tax on those who grow the food will make everyone pay more. Farmers will fail, and a great number of Canadians will be forced to make the choice between eating and heating. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/9/23 5:45:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question I raised in the House on November 1 in response to the government’s announcement that excludes 97% from the three-year suspension of the carbon tax. Constituents from my riding of Yorkton—Melville are appalled by this blatant division of Canadians into two classes, and rightly so.
The province of Saskatchewan is a leading force in the advancement of clean energy and technology. Time and time again, the NDP-Liberal government seems to forget this. Therefore, let me take a moment to clearly outline how Saskatchewan is leading on this file and why we do not need a carbon tax to change our behaviours. We are and have been proactive and progressive on continuing to steward our environment. We love it; we depend on it.
Nearly 10 years ago, the Boundary Dam power station became the first power station in the world to successfully use carbon capture and storage technology. To match the 4.6 million tonnes of CO2 captured by this unit, we would need to plant more than 69 million trees and let them grow for 10 years to get the same results.
More recently, in 2022, Saskatchewan farmers exceeded all provinces in sequestering 12.8 million tonnes of carbon, which is the equivalent of taking 2.78 million cars off the road for a year.
We can also consider that Saskatchewan’s nuclear energy potential could fulfill 170% of Canada’s total annual electricity demands. As if this were not enough, the same province is the world’s leading supplier of uranium, with 90% of uranium being exported. It is estimated that one in 20 homes in the U.S. is powered by Saskatchewan uranium.
Let us not forget the fact that Saskatchewan is the world’s largest and greenest potash producer. Potash mines in the province produce only half the emissions per tonne of potash as competing jurisdictions and still manage to achieve 30% of global production.
These are only a few examples of Saskatchewan’s sustainable initiatives, and there are many more. Beyond what has already been accomplished, experts estimate that 131,000 clean energy jobs will be added between 2025 and 2050 in Saskatchewan as the province continues to move toward a net-zero economy.
Given all this, one would expect to see strong support for my province from the Liberal government. Sadly, this has not been and will not be the case. From the NDP-Liberal government, and now a new carbon tax coalition with the separatist Bloc, we only see inflationary taxes that are hurting our families.
The Minister of Rural Economic Development has confirmed what we knew all along: The carbon tax was never about climate change. It has always been about politics. Canadians have been told that reducing emissions will not exempt them from the tax, whereas voting Liberal will.
Instead of helping struggling families, the Prime Minister is dividing Canadians into two classes: those who get relief from his punitive taxes and those who do not. The Prime Minister is only concerned about his party’s plummeting poll numbers, not about doing what is right for all Canadians.
The people of my province and riding are resilient. Cold winters with temperatures dropping down to -40°C do not stop us. Driving long distances in the freezing cold weather is something we have to do, because we are rural communities.
Ninety per cent of Saskatchewan households are heated with natural gas; because they do not vote Liberal, they are given no relief from this punitive tax that is making life unaffordable. In terms of the 10% increase to the rural payment, a whole total of $11.33 will not even buy a Big Mac meal. Canadians can now see more than ever that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Even he knows this, but he is only willing to relieve the burden off the backs of 3% of Canadians.
672 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/9/23 5:52:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear: Any of the band-aid benefits that the government has brought forward and any changes it has made on behalf of seniors have been negated by its increased taxes, its inflation and its interest rates. The government has spent all of the money, borrowed all of the money and printed all of the money it can. That is why our country is in the condition it is in. The Liberals do not get it, and their gimmicks are not helping Canadians. The Prime Minister has admitted he is doubling down on the quadrupling of the carbon tax for everyone but the 3% whom he found himself needing to respond to because of the polls and the fact that he was so unpopular because of the carbon tax.
Canadians cannot afford the current Liberal government or its taxes. Because of the current government, the prices of heat, gas and groceries have skyrocketed, and the lives of Canadians are being hurt. Canadian winters are cold, and people need to heat their home. The recent three-year suspension of the carbon tax on home heating oil is an acknowledgement of what we have been saying on this side of the House: The carbon tax is hurting Canadians and making life unaffordable.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
