- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely excellent question. I see that there are expanded powers for two ministers. I trust at least one of them. However, the Governor in Council provides a more fulsome review. Maybe even an external body that is removed from politics would be the right way to go.
As I have said, we never know whom we will end up having as a minister, and I think we should take a bit more power away from one individual and spread it out to a greater group.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague may be happily surprised to hear Zellers is returning in a few locations. That may be some welcome news.
In any event, the world is different today. Geopolitics changes over time and regimes change. That is why we need principles under which to look at all transactions.
I agree about entities that are controlled by or influenced by a foreign power, for example, whether it is hostile or not. A hostile power today might not be a hostile power tomorrow, and one that is not today could be one tomorrow. Any time there is a lack of governance and transparency, the government should be on high alert and scrutinizing the transaction to the absolute highest degree.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have very much enjoyed getting to work with the member on the finance committee. He brings many insightful comments forward.
Of course, we think the thresholds the government is currently using to review transactions are likely too low. I would refer the government to recommendations from the previous industry committee. The member rightly recognizes that there are likely more transactions that ought to fall under greater scrutiny to ensure we protect our national interests and the interests of critical resources or materials. He was alluding to jobs and headquarters too, which I think are also a consideration for the government to make sure it is reviewing.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
In 2017, the government did not request a security review of Norsat when it was purchased by Hytera Communications, which is partially owned by the People’s Republic of China. Just recently, at the end of 2022, it was exposed that the government awarded a hardware contract for RCMP communications equipment to a Norsat subsidiary. The United States blacklisted Hytera because it “poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons”.
Where was Canada's review? Was Canada informed by the United States about its findings? Did Canada do the due diligence we would expect it would normally do before a contract like this is awarded, or maybe even before a transaction is approved?
There are more examples, but members can see that our approach can actually weaken our relationships with our partners. We are not holding up our end of the bargain when it comes to national security and defence, and I worry that some countries think we are not taking it very seriously anymore.
I want to talk a bit about the governance we see at some state-owned enterprises and some of the entities that are owned, controlled or heavily influenced by foreign governments. The issue is that the objectives of these entities are not necessarily commercially minded first. They have some other interests potentially at play. They might be interested in locking up the supply of critical minerals. They might be interested in trying to get information, whether that is intellectual property, communications or information about national defence. Proper governance is important for ensuring we have faith in a free market. If these entities are not playing by the same rules and the same principles, we cannot trust all of their motives. We have to be skeptical.
In the last Parliament, a very good proposal was made by the industry committee that when a state-owned enterprise is involved, there is no threshold too low to trigger a review. That is a reasonable approach. When there is a state-owned enterprise involved or an entity that is heavily influenced by a foreign power or could be heavily influenced by a foreign power, the government needs to think about the best interests of Canada.
Who knows what these critical assets will be in the future? I am not sure 20 or 30 years ago people realized that lithium would be as important as it is now, but what about water in the future? Is that something we should be discussing now, or should we have some more flexibility to discuss that?
The other issue is assets versus shares. One can sell a business by selling assets and one can sell a business by selling the shares in the company that owns the assets, but right now we are only looking at issues where shares are purchased. We are exposing ourselves to a loophole that companies and entities can plan around, especially those that have hostile foreign interests.
There are some expanded powers for the minister, and that is okay if we believe and trust the minister. I think the minister in this case is a wonderful individual, and I do trust his judgment. However, we might get a dud in the future. We need to make sure we have proper oversight of the minister, so the Governor in Council and cabinet should have expanded power. Maybe there should even be a third body.
We are required to be stewards of our assets in this country. Defence and security sometimes is more costly. We might not be able to sell to the highest bidder if it undermines our national security. We need to be working to secure Canada's best interests for her future. I hope that the minister and the government are open to amendments.
I appreciate the fact that this has been brought forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation. It will enable the committee to do some good work, I believe, and hear from some important stakeholders. However, I view this legislation as merely a starting point for a conversation and hope to see it enhanced at committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important issue this morning. Before I close, I need to say a very happy birthday to Amanda Philp today, who I am sure is watching this and will see it on repeat a number of times.
743 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House to talk about a very important issue. Today we are talking about investment, national defence and security. The world is a far different place today than it was even a year ago, and there has been an concerted effort by hostile foreign powers to undermine western democracies, undermine our national security, undermine our economic interests and undermine democracy itself.
Before I continue, I want to mention that I am going to be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Langley—Aldergrove.
The west has basically been sleepwalking into the realignment of global power, and if we do not wake up, our lives and interests will be impaired, or worse, children across the world may not have the same freedoms that our children have in our democracies, like independence and the other freedoms we enjoy.
Not only have we allowed nefarious actions to occur right under our noses, but we have actually helped fund this global realignment. In 2018, Canada gave $250 million to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is largely viewed as expanding China’s influence and power in the world. We have been funding it. This is the context that we have to keep in mind when we think about Bill C-34 and this investment act.
These are largely viewed as some of the more significant amendments to this act in well over a decade. The bill provides new ministerial authorities and focuses on special business sectors of interest to the country. I give the government credit for bringing this forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will allow for proper scrutiny in this House, but I want to talk about a few issues.
The first is reciprocity. A fundamental principle in all trade or any real commercial relationship is that each party gets something and gives something in return. There is some exchange of equal value. This is not necessarily the case with what has been happening in global trade with Canada. Certainly it is not the case with how companies and entities invest in Canada.
Canadian companies want to invest in other countries or companies housed in other countries, but Canada does not have that opportunity. Canadian companies do not have that opportunity. It is always puzzling to understand why Canada allows companies and entities that have links to foreign governments to invest in and purchase Canadian assets when Canadian companies themselves are not allowed to make the same investments in those other countries.
The fundamental principle of reciprocity does not exist when Canadian firms cannot make the same investments that we allow companies from other countries to make here. Sometimes those companies are either owned or heavily influenced by a foreign power. Whether that foreign power is hostile or not, geopolitics changes. As we have seen in the last year, things have shifted significantly.
I submit that some of these companies and countries, frankly, are laughing at us all the way to the bank. I am beginning to think that they might think we are suckers. What I am worried about is that they are right. We do not have to look hard to find some examples of what I am talking about that make us scratch our heads.
552 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Chinese state-owned enterprises, could the member reflect on the threshold he believes might be reasonable? I believe the last committee in the previous Parliament indicated that a much lower threshold, maybe even zero, should be considered.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
