- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Abbotsford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $146,571.88
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I just following up on the previous question from my NDP colleague, who has suggested time and time again that Canada has a free trade agreement with China. That is patently false, and I think he knows that. What he is actually referring to is a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPA.
I would ask the member, who just gave a very good speech on Ukraine, if it is her understanding that Canada has gone so far as to sign a trade agreement with China and why it is that Ukraine is the priority right now when it comes to negotiating free trade.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am chuckling a bit because the member talked about a trade agreement. What Canada signed with China was not a trade agreement; it was an investment protection agreement. The purpose of that agreement was to protect Canadian investors when they invest in China, because China does not respect the rule of law the way we do in Canada.
We worked very hard for many, many years to get that agreement in place because we had identified situations where Canadian companies had made significant investments in China. One example was gold mining. After the prospecting was done and after a very productive deposit was found, guess what happened. The Chinese government stepped up and said it wanted to have Chinese businesses develop the mine and take the profits out of it. That is why we needed an investment protection agreement. It is not a trade access agreement. It does not provide new access to Canada for China to trade. It protects Canadians when they do business in China.
I encourage the member to please get his facts right and make sure he understands the agreements that Canada is signing.
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, foreign investment, whether it is investments coming into Canada or Canadians investing abroad, can contribute markedly to our national prosperity. I have travelled all around the world promoting Canadian investment, because there was a time when Canada was a great place to invest. Sadly, over the last few years under the Liberal government there has been a decline in foreign investment. Why is foreign investment abandoning Canada? It is because of high taxes and regulatory uncertainty. This should concern all Canadians, because when foreign investment comes to Canada, for the most part it drives job creation if it is done right and contributes to our overall prosperity as a country.
However, as we welcome foreign investment into our country, we also have to be very judicious, making sure that those investments, first, represent a net benefit to Canadians and, second, do not represent a national security threat to our country. That is where the Investment Canada Act comes in. It was created to ensure that as foreigners invest in Canada, we have mechanisms and tools available to review those investments, to welcome those who are going to contribute to the overall good of the country and to reject those who are not good for our country.
The bill before us is seeking to introduce some amendments to the Investment Canada Act that purportedly will really improve the robustness of this regime. Unfortunately, if we dig down into the seven main amendments being proposed, they are mostly tinkering around the edges. Why do I say that? I do not believe they will markedly reduce the influence of foreign corporations and their ability to invest in Canada, especially when they come from increasingly hostile regimes around the world.
When we look around the world, I think all of us can agree that investments coming from a country like Russia require special diligence. Investments that come from places like Iran and China require a special degree of vigilance to make sure they serve our national interest. More and more often, we have seen under the Liberal government that investments have come from abroad from the more hostile regimes around the world, which engage in espionage and make investments that are not necessarily for the good of our country but promote a foreign country's economic interests. My colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge has already articulated some of the cases where the Minister of Industry has failed to subject investments to the kind of rigorous review that Canadians would expect of its government.
For example, we had a situation where an RCMP contract was awarded for the supply of sensitive hardware for communications to a company that had earlier been purchased by a China-based company beholden to the communist regime in Beijing. How can that be? It is because the minister refused to do a national security review of that foreign investment into Canada. It was also revealed that the Canada Border Services Agency has used communications equipment and technology from the same company.
Canadians need to know that this very same company was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States. Would we trust this company not to conduct espionage in our country? Of course not. The reality is that I could go through the same list of foreign transactions my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge listed, to which the minister refused to apply the kind of rigour to reviewing these foreign investments that Canadians would expect.
We also have to understand that the geopolitical and security landscape around the world has changed dramatically and the risks Canada faces are that much more acute. We look around the world at countries like China, Russia and Iran that are flexing their muscles economically and militarily in the field of cyber-espionage, and we are incredibly vulnerable, so we have to pay attention to this.
I would also mention that, as we look at investments from abroad, there are some who have said we should be very cautious about welcoming investments of state-owned enterprises from a country like China into our country because of the allegiance of those corporations to the communist regime in Beijing. However, the reality is that, not long ago, China passed a national intelligence law, under which all Chinese corporations and citizens, whether at home or abroad, are required to act as agents of the government and hand over any information the Chinese communist authorities demand.
Therefore, any company from that country, and any citizen from that country, is expected to be an agent of the government, so as we look abroad for investment, it behooves us, as legislators and decision-makers, to make sure we are prudent in whom we welcome to our country to invest.
The largest majority of investments come from countries we would gladly welcome investment from. Obviously, if the United States has a corporation that wants to invest in Canada, we would say we welcome that investment, generally speaking. If it is a huge investment, we may want to put a special spotlight on that investment to make sure there is a net economic benefit to Canada, but by and large, the investments we attract to Canada, we welcome.
As such, the Investment Canada Act is targeted and makes sure that the investments that are problematic are reviewed by our federal government. The legislation before us, unfortunately, had the opportunity to implement the nine recommendations an earlier report from the industry committee had brought forward. Sadly, only two of those recommendations have actually been adopted by the government in its amendments to the Investment Canada Act. What a lost opportunity.
We, as a country, can do so much better, and the reality is that we, as Conservatives, have long had a robust approach to foreign investment. When we were in government, we made major reforms to the Investment Canada Act. We said “no” to investments. We required a number of foreign investments to be qualified and conditional before they could be invested in Canada.
I have just outlined very briefly what it is we are debating here, the Investment Canada Act amendments. Let us make sure we get it right.
1036 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/22 2:58:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are going to the data economy, but not with China. Our own intelligence agencies have long warned the Prime Minister about allowing Huawei into our 5G networks. It turns out they were right. For years, Huawei denied that it was a tool of the communist regime in Beijing. However, now we have evidence that the company is deeply implicated in designing surveillance tools to keep track of millions if not billions of people all around the world.
When will the minister make a decision on Huawei, and when will he finally say no way to Huawei?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/22 2:57:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada must say no to Huawei. The Washington Post recently reported how Huawei has developed voice and facial recognition technology that helps governments track and monitor political dissidents, manage re-education camps and help retailers track shoppers. This is appalling. While Canada's most trusted allies have banned Huawei from their networks, the Liberal government refuses to do so.
Again, I ask the minister when will he say no way to Huawei?
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/22 2:55:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister is not entitled to his own facts. He also refused to tell Canadians whether he consulted with our allies before making the hasty decision to allow Neo Lithium to be sold to China. We assume his answer is no and that he did not consult. Our American allies, and our other allies, banned Huawei from their 5G networks long ago and cannot understand why the Liberal government continues to dither and delay.
It has been three years. When will the minister stop appeasing the communist regime in Beijing and finally say no way to Huawei?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/22 2:54:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while lithium is critical in the production of electric vehicles, last week we learned that the minister fast-tracked the sale of a Canadian lithium company to a state-owned enterprise from China without conducting a full, national security review. However, for three long years, the same minister has refused to say no to Huawei building Canada's 5G network.
Why is it so easy for him to say yes to risky takeovers of Canadian companies, yet so hard for him to say no to dubious foreign takeovers?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/16/21 2:53:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for three years, the government has promised to have a decision “within a few weeks”. Our own intelligence agencies have warned the Prime Minister against allowing Huawei into our 5G networks. It turns out, they were right.
For years, Huawei denied that it was a tool of the Communist regime in Beijing. Now we have evidence that the company is deeply implicated in designing surveillance tools to keep track of millions, if not billions, of people around the world.
Is that acceptable to the minister, and will he make a decision on Huawei before the year end, yes or no?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/16/21 2:51:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada must say “no” to Huawei. Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that Huawei was promoting facial and voice recognition software that would help it track shoppers, monitor political dissidents and manage re-education camps. This is appalling. While Canada’s most trusted allies are banning Huawei from their networks, the government refuses to act.
Again, when will the minister say “no way” to Huawei?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/21 2:53:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the government when it would make a decision on banning Huawei. I have received no answer, so I am going to try again. Canada's most trusted security partners, including the U.S., have banned the use of Huawei technology in their 5G networks. Our country is the only one yet to say no to Huawei.
The Prime Minister promised to make this decision before the 2019 election. Here we are three years later, with another election behind us, but still no decision. When will the government and the minister make a decision?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 2:57:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's kind words, but he needs to pay attention to this file. It is time he banned Huawei. All of our allies have banned Huawei, yet Canada stands all alone in waffling on the issue. For over two years, the government has promised a decision, which is going to come in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, our telecoms have spent billions of dollars on Huawei equipment.
When will the minister finally grow a spine and say no way to Huawei?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 2:55:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr Speaker, Canada’s most trusted partners, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, have all banned Huawei equipment from their 5G networks because of espionage and national security concerns, yet there is one country that stands alone in not having said no to Huawei. It is Canada.
For years the Prime Minister has promised a decision regarding Huawei, but as usual, he has failed to deliver. Why does he not take this seriously, and when will he finally say no to Huawei?
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
