Bill C-34

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

This enactment amends the Investment Canada Act to, among other things,
(a) require notice of certain investments to be given prior to their implementation;
(b) authorize the Minister of Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to impose interim conditions in respect of investments in order to prevent injury to national security that could arise during the review;
(c) require, in certain cases, the Minister of Industry to make an order for the further review of investments under Part IV.1;
(d) allow written undertakings to be submitted to the Minister of Industry to address risks of injury to national security and allow that Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to complete consideration of an investment because of the undertakings;
(e) introduce rules for the protection of information in the course of judicial review proceedings in relation to decisions and orders under Part IV.1;
(f) authorize the Minister of Industry to disclose information that is otherwise privileged under the Act to foreign states for the purposes of foreign investment reviews;
(g) establish a penalty not exceeding the greater of $500,000 and any prescribed amount, for failure to give notice of, or file applications with respect to, certain investments; and
(h) increase the penalty for other contraventions of the Act or the regulations to the greater of $25,000 and any prescribed amount for each day of the contravention.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today.

I thank my colleague for pronouncing my riding name so well. She did a very good job. Above all, she has a wealth of experience, having been a minister in a previous government, which did a great deal for technology, among other things.

We are talking about a report on facial recognition technology that was tabled two years ago. The reality is that the government has had two years to act on the report's recommendations. Unfortunately, it has done nothing.

Many of our colleagues here have talked about Bill C-27. I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which is responsible for Bill C-27. It is important to understand that facial recognition is nowhere to be found in Bill C-27. It is a bill on artificial intelligence and privacy, but there is not a single line in that bill that talks about facial recognition.

I would like to review the chronology of events surrounding Bill C‑27. This is important, because it gives us one more opportunity to consider how the government operated. Earlier on, my colleague from Winnipeg North said it was transparent and proactive, that it was doing lots of things, that it had introduced bills, and that it was holding consultations. I have news for him: On June 16, 2022, two and a half years ago, Bill C‑27 was introduced for first reading here in the House. On November 4, 2022, six months later, we debated it at second reading. The bill reached the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology on April 24, 2023, another six months later. However, Bill C‑27 was delayed when other government legislation was given extended consideration, including Bill C‑34 and Bill C‑42. Therefore, to some degree, the government deliberately delayed consideration of the bill.

During the study of Bill C‑27, we heard from numerous witnesses. We learned that 300 groups had been consulted. The problem is that they were consulted after the bill was introduced, not before. Surely, if the minister had consulted the organizations beforehand, he might have been able to include something about facial recognition in his bill. It is good to hold consultations, and we have absolutely nothing against that. It is an important thing to do, but ideally, it should be done before the bill is introduced, to avoid situations like the one we are in now, namely that we are still debating Bill C‑27 at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I think there are roughly 250 amendments, including 55 amendments that the government moved to its own bill. How can such a thing happen? How can the government introduce a bill and then move 55 amendments a year and a half or nearly two years later? Someone somewhere must have done a bad job drafting the bill if, after introducing it, the government ended up consulting 300 groups and moving 55 amendments. We call that working backwards.

On September 26, 2023, we began studying Bill C-27, and we heard from the industry minister, who, we know, is an excellent salesman. I will give him that. Since the member for Winnipeg North told us to try to say nice things about what the government is doing, I will do just that. The government has an excellent Minister of Industry. He is a good salesman. I have no doubt he could “sell fridges to the Eskimos”. It is incredible. That said, I think that as the bill progressed, the minister was put in a position where he should have backed down, in a sense.

Contrary to what my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou said earlier, Bill C-27 does not cover a whole slew of topics. It covers two: artificial intelligence and privacy. The part of the bill on privacy is what we are debating right now. The progress of Bill C‑27 has been hampered because the Liberals want to establish a tribunal, even though no other country in the world has done that. We do not want this bill to establish a tribunal. There are already other authorities that could do this work, such as the Privacy Commissioner. We do not want to create an additional authority because that would require additional funds.

We also want Bill C-27 to move forward. The minister keeps telling us that Mr. Bengio from the University of Montreal is the father of AI in Canada and basically in the world. When Mr. Bengio appeared before the committee, he said that we needed to act quickly. We want to, but the reality is that the bill is ill-conceived. The very first witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that this bill is poorly designed.

First, artificial intelligence should have been addressed in a separate bill rather than bundled together with privacy, even though we agree that these two topics have elements in common. That does not necessarily mean that the two topics needed to be addressed in the same bill.

We moved several amendments to this bill. I must say that the committee is working collaboratively. In some committees, there are attacks, it is very politicized, it is very political and it is very partisan. I must say that at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we all work very collaboratively. We try to move bills through as quickly as possible, but in the case of Bill C‑27, that was unfortunately not possible.

Other events took place in 2023 and 2024. I think we have done an amazing job. At committee, many witnesses came to talk about artificial intelligence itself, and their testimony was very interesting. One witness in particular surprised us a bit. They practically said that we are facing a third world war, a technological war that will be fought not with weapons, but with AI. We were a bit shaken when the witness told us that. We thought they were being a bit alarmist, but the reality is that we heard very solid arguments from the experts from across Canada who also appeared at committee on this topic, at the invitation of the various political parties.

Europe has just passed legislation on artificial intelligence. Here in Canada, if the government had been willing, this bill could have been split up to separate the two subjects. We could still do that. Right now, we could limit ourselves to resolving the issue of AI, in line with what just passed in Europe and what is about to pass in the United States. Their bills have been studied extensively. Quebec already has a law in effect, Bill 25. It is not fully aligned with the legislation that will be created in Canada. A number of legal experts told us that all the provinces' laws absolutely must be consistent with the federal legislation. All of these things come into play.

Facial recognition is a fundamental point when it comes to Canadians' quality of life. We have to make sure that people will not be identified by technology that will allow racial profiling, for example. Obviously, we do not want that anywhere. Just two weeks ago, a former Montreal police chief said that there was racial profiling in Montreal. The City of Montreal will probably be charged for that. Things would be even worse if we had tools to facilitate racial profiling.

I see that my time is up. I am happy to answer questions.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it obviously was that way. I attended some of the natural resource committee hearings and meetings on that, and it seemed that the government members there were totally opposed to considering any other additions that could fix, help or improve the bill. That is obviously not the experience I have had in some other committees. In particular, I am vice-chair of the industry committee, a very collegial committee on Bill C-34, which amended the Investment Canada Act, and the government agreed to many of the amendments the opposition made.

Right now there are many amendments to Bill C-27, perhaps one of the most consequential bills that Parliament has dealing with privacy and artificial intelligence, a complete replacement of our Privacy Act, and we have already passed six amendments to the bill from all parties. The government is operating in a very different way in very different committees, which surprises me, but maybe it should not surprise me that it does one thing in one place and says another thing in another place.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act; Bill C-67, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024; Bill C-68, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne.

Natural Resources

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, our government will always stand up for Canadian workers in Canadian industries.

Our government has been clear from day one that we will always welcome foreign investment and trade that encourage economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada. We know that economic security is national security. Bill C-34 would implement the ICA and bring forward improvements so our government can act more quickly when required.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in this most honourable House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East. It is great to see everyone this afternoon. I hope that all my colleagues and their families are doing well on this Tuesday.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate. Rather than indulge in Conservative partisan attacks on the pollution price, let us talk about what matters most to Canadians: making life more affordable and ensuring that Canadian families have good jobs and good futures for themselves and their children. That has been the focus of our government since day one and we will continue to be on that tangent.

As Canadians continue to feel the effects of global inflation, our government understands that it remains difficult for too many families to make ends meet.

We are seeing very strong indications that global inflation is rolling over. We have seen that in Europe where inflation is at 1.8% or so. We have seen that in the United States where some indicators have it down below 3%. We have seen rent inflation in the United States actually roll over to the downside. We have seen that in recent indicators in Canada. I strongly believe, as an economist and someone who worked on Bay Street and Wall Street for many years, although I grew up in small-town Canada, we will see that in the months ahead in Canada. When we look at the price of containers or look at leading indicators of the TRI index and so forth, inflation is rolling over to the downside. That is the way our economy is going. It will be a benefit to all Canadians.

Since 2015, our government has taken many actions to make life more affordable for Canadians who need it most, but we understand that some Canadians still need more support.

That is why, last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced new measures to support Canadians in the 2023 fall economic statement.

Of course, we are undertaking this while continuing to deliver the government's economic plan, and while also making important progress on the government's existing commitments that are helping to make life more affordable across the country.

It is clear that our measures are having a very real impact on Canadians' budgets.

I would like to give a few concrete examples.

A family with two children in British Columbia, with an income of $88,000 in 2023, could benefit from about $17,700 as a result of reduced child care costs, the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit and tax relief from the increased basic personal amount, which we raised to $15,000 in 2023-24. That will provide Canadians $6 billion of tax relief from coast to coast to coast. This is money in the pockets of Canadians.

For my family, my little daughter is at day care. The families that use that day care in the province of Ontario have saved 50%, which literally means up to $8,000 in after-tax dollars, while before-tax dollars it is over $10,000. Going into 2024, they are going to see a further reduction in their day care costs, which means real savings for families across Canada. That, again, will make life more affordable for all Canadians.

In Nova Scotia, low-income students could receive more than $5,800 in additional support in 2023, thanks to increased Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans, the grocery rebate and pollution price rebates, known as the climate action incentive payments.

If students have a disability or dependants, they could receive an additional $12,800 in specialized student grants, plus an extra $640 per dependant and up to $20,000 toward devices that support their learning. After graduating, all their federal student loans will remain interest free. Again, student loans to youth or older folks going to school are interest free, with full repayment assistance available until their income surpasses $40,000 per year.

A 78-year-old senior in Quebec with a maximum GIS entitlement could receive more than $2,000 in additional support in 2023. That is $2,000 in seniors' pockets thanks to the grocery rebate, the GIS top-up increase for single seniors, and the 10% old age security increase for people 75 and up.

However, we know that more needs to be done to support Canadians, especially through these times when global inflation has had an impact on all economies throughout the world. That is why our government has taken further action in the 2023 fall economic statement to support the middle class and build more homes faster.

To help Canadians with mortgages, our government is moving forward with the new Canadian mortgage charter, which details the relief Canadians can expect from their banks if they are in financial difficulty.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, there is an important issue on the supply side. There is simply not enough homes for Canadians. We have known this for years. We know that we need to increase the supply of homes. We have no choice; we need to do it. There are many reasons for this. We are attracting newcomers from all over the world, whether it is in the global high-tech stream, family reunification, express entry or firms putting forward LMIAs.

We are a magnet for talent from all over the world wanting to come to live, work and invest in Canada, which is a foreign concept for the official opposition. Foreign companies wishing to invest in Canada is a great thing. We need to champion it. Literally millions of Canadians work for foreign companies that have invested in Canada, and I cannot believe the official opposition does not like that.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, we need more supply. That is why we are accelerating our work to build more homes faster. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week in the 2023 fall economic statement that we would introduce billions of dollars in new financing to build more homes faster.

To make housing in this country more affordable, we will put forward measures to crack down on short-term rentals. We really want homes to be used for Canadians to live in. We will also take steps to increase the number of construction workers from coast to coast to coast.

I have been talking about housing measures, but cost of living challenges also include basic needs, such as groceries. Obviously, we see that as a major problem, so we are putting forward concrete measures to tackle it.

For example, we are going to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure Canadians have more choice, through competition, in where they take their business. The Competition Tribunal is something I hold dearly. We need to modernize it, and we are. We have done this with Bill C-34 and with other bills, as well as measures in Bill C-56. We need to move forward on that.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but capitalism only exists when there are rules and regulation and competition is encouraged, which fosters innovation, choice and lower prices. The more competition we have, the better our economy functions and better jobs happen. I am a big believer in new processes and new industries being created, and that is what is happening in Canada, whether it is in artificial intelligence, fintech or the many sectors across our beautiful country.

Together with Bill C-56, we will strengthen the tools and powers available to the Competition Bureau to enable it to crack down on abuses of dominance by bigger companies, including those intended to keep out competition, such as predatory pricing. Companies should pay for predatory pricing.

We will further modernize merger reviews, including by empowering the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. This is very important. Canadians deserve better, always—

Oral Questions

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order.

I am being a bit of a stickler today. I would not normally point this out on behalf of my own colleagues, but during the recent votes, a colleague walked out before the vote announcement, therefore negating his vote. This was done on purpose because the member was to be paired with a minister and was not supposed to vote. Therefore, I would ask that the vote of the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier not count for Motions Nos. 1 and 2 in Group No. 1 at the report stage of Bill C-34.

Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I know that he runs his department with passion. I will speak briefly of the issue of closure motions in a minority government. As the closure motions keep on coming, we wonder if the government really understood the message it got from voters. They wanted it to reach agreements in the context of a minority government. Imposing one gag order after another is not what I would call taking into account the fact that it is a minority government.

We voted for Bill C-34, but as my colleagues said, there are a few blind spots. In particular, the last update to the Investment Canada Act dates from 1985. I was not very old in 1985. That was some time ago. I would like to hear my colleague comment about how this would have been a great opportunity to update it completely in order to protect our domestic head offices, not just address the issue of national security. We could have extended the scope of the act to include that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not on the merits of Bill C-34, but on the use of time allocation once again. On principle, I will vote against time allocation always because this is the place where legislation gets debated.

Many members of the House are not members of the industry committee. I am not allowed to be a member of the INDU committee. I have very strong views on Bill C-34 and national security considerations on takeovers of Canadian companies, but will not be allowed to speak to this because, yet again, the guillotine is being brought down. The Harper administration did this time and time again, and the opposition knew it was wrong then. The Liberals promised that they would not, and now it is routine. Time allocation is put on almost every bill.

The hon. minister knows the high opinion I hold of him. I want to be able to discuss this legislation. I was the first MP in the House to identify that the takeover of Aecon by the People's Republic of China should have had a national security review. For a long time, I was the lone voice. We finally got it, and the deal was turned down.

I care about this stuff, and I really think every member of the House has a right to participate in debates. Time allocation defeats that right.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the minister to convince the public of the need for his gag order. We are debating a closure motion, but we are wondering why we are even doing that. The Liberals are only imposing closure because they already know that someone is going to vote in favour of it, and that is likely the NPD, which is part of their coalition.

My question will instead focus on the bill. I think that there is a missed opportunity in Bill C-34, and since I have the floor, I want to speak to that problem. The minister is here, so why not?

Bill C-34 modernizes the entire issue of national security to tighten the rules in that area. That is not a bad thing in the current geopolitical context. However, the government left out a major component that it would have been only natural to include in this bill. We have often raised, in the House and in public debate, the issue of modernizing the Investment Canada Act, particularly the economic interest component of it.

When a major investment is made in a business here or in a new business, or when a foreign entity purchases an existing business, how is it that the review threshold is as high as $1.7 billion? When this government took office, there was a review threshold of $300 million. That means that, now, with the exception of cases where there is a threat to national security, the government does not even take an interest in files until the review threshold reaches $1.7 billion, as opposed to $300 million.

Does the minister not think that is rather high?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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.

Bill C-34—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the Thursday question.

Tomorrow, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement implementation act.

Next week, our priority will be given to Bill C-34 concerning the Canada Investment Act; Bill S-9, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52 to enact the air transportation accountability act.

Finally, next Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleagues whose energy motivates me when I am speaking.

Bill C‑34 was supposed to be on the agenda today, but the Conservative Party decided that we would instead discuss the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which has to do with the national housing strategy.

I think it is worthwhile debating report concurrence motions because they give the reports some visibility. The committees work hard on the report studies, and that was especially true when it came to housing. This is not the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We conducted an extensive study on the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. We now have another study that mainly involves the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, because it is the one that administers the national housing strategy programs. We wanted the CMHC to report on the results of the national housing strategy, which was put in place by the Liberal government in 2017 and runs for 10 years.

Is this the right time to be having this debate? Should we have been talking about something else? In any case, we were ready to keep talking about Bill C‑34, but the Conservatives decided for other reasons to have this debate on this report.

During the study leading up to this report, CMHC employees came to testify in committee. We wanted to be able to study an important program that concerns the current infrastructure and seeks to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%. The Auditor General was harsh because we were unable to determine the targets.

All that to say that it is important that we discuss this report because that will allows us to see where things stand, to take stock of the situation. No one here disputes the fact that there is a housing crisis. We talk about it often. The cost of living and the issue of housing is top of mind for everyone. In committee, we tried to determine whether the situation had been corrected and what else could be done in terms of the amount of money invested in federal programs that are administered by the CMHC. This is part of the key recommendations of this report that the Conservative Party is asking us to study today. The majority of parties adopted this report in committee. The Conservatives have presented a dissenting opinion. That is their right.

What matters most to us in the Bloc Québécois is that the 15 recommendations in this report be implemented and that the government be held to account because CMHC is being asked a lot of questions. Let us consider the example of homelessness in this report. It is rather inconceivable that we have a strategy to fight homelessness and yet we cannot assess chronic homelessness rates any more than we could when this report was released. Even today, when CMHC and Infrastructure Canada appeared before the committee, we were told that the situation is stable. It is rather worrisome that we have reached this point.

One of the strong recommendations in the report reads as follows:

That in order to reach the Government of Canada's own target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027–2028, that the Government of Canada show leadership by taking a whole of government approach, in collaboration with provinces and territories, to ensure wrap around services and other supports are made available to the those in need, and report back to the committee no later than December 2023 on a plan on how the government will achieve this goal.

This report contains some strong recommendations that call on CMHC and the government to take action. Although CMHC administers the national housing strategy, the government is still responsible for establishing the programs and objectives. It is investing $82 billion in the strategy through various programs. Given the housing crisis, we expect results. In collaboration with Quebec and the provinces, the program's objectives must be able to support supply and demand for social housing and affordable housing.

The committee asked CMHC some major questions. The report includes 15 recommendations. I will not read them all. We told CMHC that it must report on what is not working. Why have targets not been met? One could argue that the national housing strategy is a failure. It is a failure because the real needs centre on social housing and affordable housing. The most vulnerable members of society and low-income people are most affected by the housing crisis. The expectations are clear. Programs need to be more agile and more responsive. People should not have to wait for months, much less years, to get housing.

The federal government decided to take action and invest. It has the authority to spend money. There is no need for it to drag its feet for years before handing money over to Quebec and the provinces so that they can take action. Who is primarily responsible for housing in a given region? It is Quebec and its municipalities. The federal government decided to set up programs through its national housing strategy. We had to wait three years for an agreement. That makes no sense. As for the latest acquisition program, which was just adopted in 2022, we had to push the federal government and ask when was going to pay the $900 million earmarked for Quebec. Quebec demanded it. If the federal government wants to support housing, it has to be more flexible and tweak the conditions so that there can be real results. Many solutions have been put forward. It is interesting to hear all the witnesses in these studies. The government could act quickly.

As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has often said, some doors and housing units are boarded up. The national housing co-investment fund includes money for low-income housing that could be renovated. CMHC is freezing funding because renovation costs are higher now than they were then. We must take action. The process is taking a long time. We are talking about seven units and 300 units. It is not up to the federal government to do everything. However, if it decides to take action, it must take into account the fact that Quebec has the expertise and it is important to act much faster.

Some programs have made a difference, including accelerated housing programs. They were dedicated specifically to co-ops and non-profit organizations. Anyone could apply. It was faster. This produced results. Some things are working. CMHC was clearly called out in this report, which contains 15 recommendations.

I think it is important to talk about this today for one reason. When we do studies in committee, sometimes we delve more deeply into issues there than here in the House, unfortunately.

By all accounts, sometimes it is for strategic reasons that parties decide to talk about these things. In this case, we are talking about the housing crisis. I am not saying that the Conservatives are acting in bad faith, but sometimes we debate certain things without having the same objectives.

If everyone agrees that there is a housing crisis, we should be able to agree on what to do to ensure that the programs do not leave 10,000 homeless people in the street in Quebec. That is where we are.

Today, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation may come tell us that we will be short 3.5 million housing units by 2030. In Quebec alone, we will need 1.1 million. We can go ahead and build housing, increase the supply and provide an incentive by eliminating the GST, but will that have any impact on the cost of housing for renters? This will take time, and a lot of housing will need to be built.

In these programs, the concept of affordability is also debatable. Is $2,200 a month affordable for a person with an average income? It is not. In the national housing strategy programs, the definitions of affordability are not the same.

Now that the national housing strategy has been around for five years, is there a way to adapt and to look forward, taking into account what we are dealing with? Is there a way to take real action to avoid speculation, to do something about the financialization that is negatively affecting social and affordable housing and to invest in a way that enables non-profit organizations to buy properties on the private market? There are all sorts of solutions. Talking about it is useful, if we follow that up with action.

If the government shelves the committee reports and there is no accountability before the deadlines we set, that would be worrisome. That is why it is useful to discuss this report. Would it be useful to refer this report back to the committee? I would say no. However, I think that it would be useful for the government to account for what the committee and its witnesses are examining. The government also needs to recognize the real players who have knowledge and skills in the area of housing: our cities, our municipalities and Quebec.

The federal government decided to invest money with the objective of increasing the social and affordable housing stock. Now it must ensure that its actions complement that objective and that it does not impose conditions. That will go a long way to resolving the housing crisis.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc wanting to talk about Bill C-34, because at the end of the day, foreign interference does matter. It matters a great deal to Canadians. When we think of the position Canada is in, whether it is with regard to trade agreements or being a safe country to invest in, we are talking about the modernization of the Investment Canada Act.

Like the member opposite no doubt, I would like to see the bill go to committee. We could have done that today. It is going to take co-operation from the Conservative Party in order for that to happen. All signs are that it will not happen because the Conservatives want to filibuster and prevent the bill from passing. The member, as other members do, has concerns and would like to see it go to committee so those concerns can be addressed. I hope the Conservatives will at some point act and support Bill C-34 going to committee.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even if Bill C‑34 passes, modernization of the Investment Canada Act will have to continue. Part of the legislation arising from Bill C‑34 also concerns national security.

How will the government address the lack of provisions on proper analysis of economic benefit?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, typically, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the issue of the day. We all know that this was not supposed to be the issue of the day. This is the Conservative Party once again playing a political game on the floor of the House of Commons, preventing legislation from passing. The Conservatives do not really have anything to say about the legislation, so instead they bring in a concurrence motion to try to frustrate the government's ability to pass legislation.

That has somewhat been lost so far in the discussion that we witnessed after question period. Housing is, no doubt, a very important issue. I do not question that at all. In fact, when it comes to housing, when I was first elected back in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I was the housing critic along with the party whip at the time. I can say that even prior to that point, I had an active interest in housing and in non-profit housing in particular with the creation of the Weston Housing Co-op, and in working with associations like Blake Gardens and Gilbert Park to a certain extent after I got elected, on the Gilbert Park aspect of it. I had an interest in infill homes and the importance of having governments engaged in dealing with housing issues, from suburban new homes to inner-city housing problems of dilapidated homes that needed to be torn down, to vacant lots that were available and to housing renewal programs to improve the housing stock. Therefore, the issue of housing is not new to me at all. I am very familiar with it and I am very comfortable with respect to the way that the Government of Canada in the last number of years has approached this issue.

Before I get into some of the details of that issue, the reason we are debating once again another concurrence motion has not been lost on me. We all know that there is a finite amount of time here in terms of debate. The Conservatives always cry over there not being enough time for debate when it comes to government legislation. They constantly do that. They will whimper away. They will cry and say they want more debate, that we are limiting debate and bringing in time allocation. The Conservatives do not want to sit late nights; they have demonstrated that. They have shown that they will adjourn debates even before the day is over, but they will whine and cry that there is not enough debate on government bills. At the same time, they will prevent government bills from being debated. Then they will say that today's choice is housing, so they dig in and find the issue of housing and say that here is a super important issue. Yes, it is important, but every issue that the Conservatives bring to the floor through the concurrence debate they will claim is an important one. However, the primary purpose is not to debate the issue at hand; it is to prevent the debate on government bills.

Again, let us look at the amendment that has been brought forward and that the Speaker just finished reading. What is the essence of the amendment? The Conservatives want to bring it back to committee. I wonder if the member who moved the motion even brought it up at the agenda. We are going to have three hours of debate on this motion. Did the Conservative Party even raise the issue of having this debate at the standing committee? I would not be surprised if it did not. Actually, I would think that the members know full well that everything we are going to be debating for three hours here could have been very easily done in the standing committee. However, the problem with doing that is that it would have obligated the Conservatives to come up with some other excuse or to allow the debate on what was supposed to be debated today, which was Bill C-34, the investment Canada bill. The Conservatives talk a lot about foreign interference, but when the rubber hits the ground, they are slipping and sliding all over the place.

At the end of the day, there is a very strong correlation between foreign investment and foreign interference, and what we have seen is the Conservative Party now using the issue of housing as a way to allow the debate to continue. The Conservatives are making it very clear that if we want to see that legislation pass, like many other pieces of legislation, the government will ultimately have to bring in time allocation. We have to wait until we can get support from an opposition party in order to be able to bring in time allocation. Conservatives will tell people outside the chamber that they are concerned about foreign interference, but if anything, all they do is cause a filibuster and put up roadblocks to prevent good legislation from ultimately, in this case, going to committee, where it can actually be debated and talked about in great detail and brought toward amendments. The current government, unlike the previous government, is actually open to amendments if they are good ones, even if they come from the opposition side.

The Conservatives did the same thing in regard to the Ukraine debate and on many pieces of legislation. One would think they would be a little more sensitive in terms of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. If we can pass legislation, I believe it in Canadians' best interest, like a lot of the legislation we are bringing forward. The debate the Conservative Party wants to have today, in terms of housing, could just as easily have been done in a standing committee; in fact, the amendment is suggesting that it be done and brought to a standing committee of the House.

If only we were able to use the government business portion to deal with government bills, maybe we would not have so many whining and crying Tories saying we are bringing in time allocation and not allowing enough time for them to debate government legislation. I would argue they cannot have it both ways. They cannot bring in all of these different filibuster types of motions and then go to Canadians and say that we are not allowing them to debate bills. That is what they are doing, and to make it even more of a challenge, when we as a government say we want to provide more time and sit until midnight, the Conservatives are the first ones who jump up, yelling and screaming, and say no to that. How many times have we seen Conservatives stand up in their place and say, “I move now, seconded by so-and-so, that so-and-so be heard to speak”? It is not so the person can speak; instead of debating, it actually causes the bells to ring. That is what I mean by Tory games. That is really what this is: a reckless Conservative Party of Canada that does not understand the value of being more productive on the floor of the House of Commons. That is really quite unfortunate, because we all collectively pay the price.

I talk about housing because I, as I know my colleagues do, take the issue of housing very seriously. Even at times when the opposition is doing nothing but focusing attention on character assassination, we continue to be focused on the issues that are important and relevant to Canadians, whether it is inflation, interest rates or the cost of housing.

I go back to 1993, when something was felt here in Ottawa at the time, by every political party inside the chamber. Whether they were Reformers, Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats, every political party back then advocated that Ottawa's role in housing should be marginalized. I remember it well because I can remember debating, in the north end of Winnipeg, why it was important that Ottawa play a role in housing in Canada, why we should ensure, within the Constitution, that Canada, as a national government, plays a role.

Whether it was back then, when there was no political will, it seemed, from any political party to recognize the value of a national government's playing a role in housing, or today, my opinion has never changed. When one thinks of housing as an issue, one would probably have to go back to the world wars to find a prime minister who was as keen on developing a housing strategy. In fact, that is what this report is about. The Conservatives want to criticize the national housing strategy. They are saying, in essence, that we should not have one. They are being critical of the money we have invested in the national housing strategy.

I do not know the exact numbers today. If I were to speculate, I know that when I was the housing critic, we had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000-plus non-profit housing units. Those housing units, in places like Gilbert Park, which I have represented for many years and still do at the national level now, provided affordable housing. That is not the only option out there; there are other forms of affordable housing that are important to support. When one thinks of the raw numbers, of a direct grant that goes toward a block of housing units, the federal government spends literally millions, going into the hundreds of millions of dollars every year, supporting non-profit housing from coast to coast to coast. The national housing strategy took that into consideration in terms of providing the assurance of multi-year budgeting potential. It provided the finances to ensure that a large portion of the non-profit housing stock can actually be maintained through capital improvements.

When the Conservatives start criticizing the national housing strategy, they need to factor in the tens of thousands of homes in the regions of Canada that are, in fact, being supported through the strategy, directly and often indirectly also. They want to have that kind of a debate. They want to hear some of the numbers. I would suggest that, at least in part, the motion that was brought forward makes some sense, in the sense that it is a great issue for a standing committee to deal with.

Think in terms of the alternatives to housing that are government-owned and government-operated, either directly or indirectly, through different groups or the municipalities or provinces but supported in good part by federal dollars. Think outside that box. Think of housing co-ops. Before I was elected as an MLA, there was the Weston Residents Housing Co-op. It was a way in which we were able to help revitalize a community and, at the same time, provide affordable housing for many people. I think of Willow Park and Willow Part East. Willow Park East might be the oldest housing co-op in Canada and possibly even in North America. Housing co-ops, I believe, are a wonderful opportunity for people to have joint ownership. There is a huge difference between a housing co-op and, let us say, an apartment block. I always say that in a housing co-op, someone is a resident, not a tenant, because they own. They have collective ownership of the property, so they have a lot more in terms of opportunities. For the first time in years, we now have a government that has been supporting housing co-ops and wants to see the expansion of that area.

What about non-profit groups? One of the most successful non-profits we have in the country today is Habitat for Humanity. In the province of Manitoba, it excels. It has probably put in more infill houses than any government program that I can recall offhand. In the province of Manitoba, it is about 500 brand new homes in communities, whether in Winnipeg North, The Maples, Point Douglas or everywhere in between. It is making these homes available to people who would never have had the opportunity to get homes. The federal government supports Habitat for Humanity because we recognize the important role that non-profit agencies have when it comes to housing.

We have taken a litany of budgetary actions that have provided opportunities for the federal government to play a strong leadership role in housing. The Conservatives say that the housing market is what it is today because of the federal government. I hate to think what it would have been like if Stephen Harper were the prime minister today. There are challenges, but it is wrong to say that it is all about Ottawa and the Government of Canada. I have news: It is not going to be the Government of Canada that resolves the issue, in terms of providing money. The Government of Canada has a strong leadership role to play, something the current Leader of the Opposition and Stephen Harper never provided when they were in government. We are at the table. We are working with municipalities and provinces, developing programs and encouraging the type of builds we need. That is why we have the rental support for new units to be built, anticipating tens of thousands of new units to come on stream over the coming years as a direct result of the federal government's initiative of getting rid of the GST on new builds.

Some provinces are now piggybacking on that particular policy. It is maybe four or five provinces to date. I hope the Province of Manitoba does likewise. It would ensure additional units being built in the future. It is not just Ottawa. In some provinces, the housing crisis is more severe than in others. We feel the pain in all areas. That is why the desire of the government is to try to assist and support local municipalities, not to take a big stick and whomp them over the head, saying that this is what they have to do. It is working with municipalities and working with the provinces. It is recognizing that non-profit groups also have a role to play. I believe it takes a team. The private sector obviously has to play a role; in fact, it will be playing the largest role in terms of overall construction.

The federal government is at the plate in many different ways, whether with the national housing strategy or with implementation through numerous federal budgets, to be there to support Canadians on the important issue of housing. We will continue to be there because we understand that it is an issue Canadians have to plow their way through, knowing that the federal government has their back and that it is doing what it can as a national government to ensure that the issues of affordability, the number of homes and renovations are all being taken into consideration.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to commit to setting anything in stone, but I will commit to it being very likely that this will indeed be the calendar for next week.

This afternoon, we will continue report stage debate of Bill C-34 concerning the Canada Investment Act. Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-52, the air transportation accountability act. On Monday and Wednesday, we will return to debate on Bill C-34.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days. I know that is what the member is particularly interested in. I am sure it is the best part of his week; I am not sure it is the best part of my week.

I would also like to inform the House that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be delivering a ministerial statement on Thursday, November 2 to acknowledge the beginning of Veterans' Week.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, we need to look at what the Conservative Party is saying about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We have now had two of its members say they want to abolish it. They are making it clear and reinforcing that fact. They believe that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea.

Members are saying, “Yes, it is.” That is what I mean about their being so reckless when it comes to what the interests of Canadians really are. Do Conservatives have any idea that we are talking about 46 projects all over Canada? The government has committed just under $10 billion, and the Conservatives are going to throw it away. They say it is garbage and it is not necessary.

Do members know that the $9.7 billion has now accessed an additional $20 billion from the private sector? That is an incredible amount of money. The Conservatives say there are no projects, or they will qualify it and say there are no projects that have been completed. When we spend billions of dollars on projects, they do not necessarily happen overnight, but there are 46 projects well under way, including projects in the home provinces of the two people who rose to speak on the concurrence report. The projects are going to make a huge difference, but the Conservatives want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

This goes back to Stephen Harper, who never really believed in investing in Canada's infrastructure, nowhere near to the same degree the government has. From day one, the government has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and on supporting individuals in need. Part of recognizing how we are going to do that is by investing in our economy through the creation of jobs, through the development of trade agreements and through bringing forward a higher standard for infrastructure spending. No government in the history of Canada has spent more money on infrastructure, because we recognize that to have a strong Canada, we need to invest in infrastructure.

With the billions of dollars we spent and invested in infrastructure, we also had an add-on with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which the Conservatives across the way like to mock. They now say they want to abolish it completely. Even in my home province of Manitoba, there are infrastructure dollars from the bank going toward the Internet to modernize and to make sure that rural Manitoba is connected. On the one hand, the Conservatives are critical, saying we are not doing enough on rural connectivity, even though we are doing more than Harper did. Then, when it comes time to invest in the infrastructure, they are saying they do not want that infrastructure and they are going to cancel the Infrastructure Bank.

The Conservatives have no idea what they are talking about. It is almost as if they walk into their back room, talk to their leader, who gets a bright idea, and then make the decision that common sense says infrastructure is bad. Why is it bad? They need to explain that to me. We invest and see $27 billion going toward Canada's infrastructure on projects that will have a profoundly positive impact, yet common sense, according to the Conservative ideology, says it is bad. That is why I was talking about the Homer Simpson award. It is incredible. I do not understand it.

When I first found out we were going to be talking about another concurrence report, the first thing that came across my mind was not necessarily to talk about the subject matter; it was to talk about “Here we go again with the Conservative Party's trying to filibuster legislation.”

It is legislation that is so critically important, yet they always use concurrence motions to prevent legislative debate. Let me give members an example. The day before yesterday we were talking about trade agreements. There is a lot of infrastructure necessary in Ukraine. It is a very important deal. It is infrastructure that Canada has a great deal of experience with, and it is part of that trade agreement.

Let us talk about the two days of solid hours of debate that takes place, something we all support, although maybe not. I should not say that. Do members remember when the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine at a time of war and asked why we even have this piece of legislation? He even described it as being “woke legislation”.

This was after the President of Ukraine came to Canada to sign an agreement, which has so much power with economic ties and messaging on the war, and a huge part of it is dealing with infrastructure. I do not know why, but Conservatives are once again trying to be mischievous. On the one hand they say they support Ukraine, and then they do something like this. I asked if we could pass it by Christmas, and they waffle. Now we are on another piece of legislation, and they are using that tactic again.

When I came here I was not expecting to talk about the Infrastructure Bank, although I have a lot more to say on it. Rather, I was expecting to speak to legislation dealing with the Investment Canada Act, Bill C-34, which is very important. When we think of infrastructure, we have to recognize that it is so badly needed in many of our communities. Having the Infrastructure Bank is, at least in good part, meeting many of those demands and getting things to market.

We are supposed to be talking about foreign investment coming into Canada today, a modernization of the act from 2009, because a lot has changed since then. We are supposed to be talking about ensuring that the minister has a national security review of the transactions that are taking place. Today, AI is something that is very serious. When we take that into consideration with international investment, I always thought Conservatives would be concerned about that. However, once again today we see, through the moving of this concurrence motion, that they are saying no. They are not being sensitive to issues such as technological advancements, AI and the impact it is having on international investments into Canada. Canada welcomes international investment, but we have to make sure that we have things in place to modernize the act, whether it is in respect to the minister or other processes, to protect the technology and our industries. That is what we are supposed to be talking about today.

Instead, Conservatives have brought forward a motion on the Infrastructure Bank. Given their position on the Infrastructure Bank, I hope that either the Bloc or New Democrats will bring forward an opposition day motion to seek clarification. I would like to see the leader of the Conservative Party backtrack on the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. If he really believes in building a stronger or healthier Canada, this reckless policy of getting rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is the wrong way to go.

The Leader of the Opposition needs to understand that investments in infrastructure matter. I could go through the 46 projects there, even though the Conservatives want to spread inaccurate information. We can read what they have said in their speeches, just in the introduction. They tried to give the false impression that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing nothing, that there are no jobs because none of the projects are actually completed.

What about the hundreds, potentially thousands, of jobs, both direct and indirect, that are already in place, with people working today, because there are 46 projects under way? Some will be completed sooner than others. Some will make a huge difference for the environment.

I am thinking about the community of Brampton. A number of months ago, when I was looking at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, there was talk of an investment to electrify the public transit buses. I do not know exactly where that is today, but I can assure the House that it is making progress. That is not the only public transit in Canada that has accessed the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and that is a good thing.

I understand some members in the Conservative Party do not necessarily care about the electrification of vehicles. I suspect that includes buses. Rather, they are trying to play up the myth that we are going to see cars blowing up or catching on fire because we have too many electric vehicles, and it is such a small percentage overall of the population. It is that whole tin hat syndrome, which they tend to have.

It is something—

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be very happy with my answer.

I hope that happiness will result in him supporting Bill C‑56 and not just giving a speech about it. The bill is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-38, which deals with new registration entitlements. I am sure my colleague is very interested to hear that, on Monday, we will debate Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, which was introduced earlier this week.

Thursday, we will proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, concerning the Investment Canada Act. I assume that my hon. colleague is very happy with this news, and I look forward to hearing his speech on Monday.

Industry and Technology

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about the beaches of Bay of Quinte. Sandbanks is the largest freshwater sandbar in all the world. We welcome well over a million visitors a year, and everyone is welcome. Some of us wish we were there today.

The bill deserves the attention that we are trying to give it, as rushed as it is. We need to spend time on a lot of different bills right now. We are dealing with Bill C-34 and are waiting for Bill C-27. The reality is that there is a lot of important legislation that we need to get through, and we need to spend the ample amount of time that these bills deserve to have spent on them. As I have mentioned, we certainly would have liked to see a few more amendments studied. We wanted to see the future of money laundering studied and not just to catch up to today.

There is a lot of great work to happen ahead, and as soon as we are done with the beaches and it gets a little colder, we will see everyone back here in Parliament so we can keep working on behalf of Canadians.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent concerning a vote held earlier today on Bill C-34. I would like to mark my vote as affirmative.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me join with my hon. colleague, the opposition House leader, in wishing everyone a joyous Easter. I hope that members who are celebrating Easter take time with their families. This is also a very busy time for many of our other faith communities as we recognize Vaisakhi. We are in the holy month of Ramadan right now and we have Passover. This is a time that is very rich, one when I know people will be visiting churches, mosques and temples in our communities to share with the rich faith traditions in our constituencies. I hope all members are able to profit from those opportunities to be with their constituents and families.

With respect to Bill C-11, I will simply state that I do not think there is any amount of time that would satisfy Conservatives. In fact, I would challenge the opposition House leader to indicate just how many days of debate he would like. I do not think there is any end. Conservatives have indicated they want to obstruct this bill. This bill has had more time in the Senate than any bill in history. It was in the last Parliament and it is in this Parliament. It is time our artists get compensated for their work and that the tech giants pay their fair share.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, and then we are going to be switching to Bill C-34, the Investment Canada Act.

When we return, we will continue with the budget debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Thursday, we will start the day with a ways and means vote relating to the budget implementation act. Following the vote, we will proceed to the debate on Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022, followed by Bill C-42.

Finally, on Friday, we will commence debate on the budget bill.

Telecommunications Act

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, these are the words spoken yesterday by President Xi of China to Vladimir Putin as they departed company in Moscow: “Change that hasn’t happened in 100 years is coming and we are driving this change together.” Their meeting, which took place under the shadow of Russia's onslaught in Ukraine, was one that the experts stated was a meeting to build Russia's and China's alignment against the U.S. and the west, “and a world order more suited to their more autocratic agendas”.

Before us is a very serious bill at a very serious time, and it also would work in coordination with a lot of other serious bills we have on the floor right now. Bill C-34 is on the Investment Act, which looks closely at what investments are security minded and good for Canada. Bill C-27 would enact the consumer privacy act and look at the protection of Canadians' privacy. We have stated all along that privacy for Canadians needs to be a fundamental human right. The bill on interoperability and the right to repair look at different ways in which we are dealing with our IP and technology in Canada.

Today at the science and research committee, we continued the study of IP commercialization, ensuring we can develop technology and hold technology in Canada. We lose a significant amount of our IP to the Americans, to other nations and to foreign entities.

We talk about the world order and what is happening in the world. Albert Einstein famously said that he was not sure what weapons would be used in World War III, but that the weapons of World War IV would be sticks and stones. The weapons being used right now are joysticks and software. We should make no mistake that, at this moment, we are already at war. We are not only talking about Ukraine. The member previous spoke about some of the attacks that are happening from a centre of cyber-attacks in Ukraine.

Cyber-attacks are happening across the world, and they are happening right now in Canada. There has been a lot of different alarming statistics on cyber-attacks and malware attacks in Canada. We know the Canada Revenue Agency was attacked in August 2020, impacting nearly 13,000 Canadians, who were victims of that. There was also a hospital in Newfoundland in October 2020 where cybersecurity hackers stole personal information from health care employees and patients in all four health regions. That affected 2,500 people.

Black & McDonald, a major defence and security company and contractor, was hit with ransomware just two weeks ago. That is our security being hit by the very thing it is trying to protect us from. Global Affairs Canada was attacked in January 2022 right around the time Russia engaged in the illegal invasion of Ukraine. It was reported that it may have been Russian or Russian state-sponsored actions responsible for the cyber-attack on Global Affairs.

Most famously, there was a ransomware attack on critical infrastructure in the United States back in May 2021 where pipeline infrastructure was attacked. President Biden, who will be here tomorrow, issued at that time a state of emergency, and 17 states also issued states of emergency. It was very serious, which shows the capabilities of some of those cyber-threat actors. With ransomware, there are companies that attack companies and then demand a ransom or money before they return those computers or the networks back to the owners. It is now worth $20 billion. That is how much money ransomware is costing businesses. Back in 2016, it was only $5 billion.

The technology is rapidly advancing, and it is a war. It is a war that is affecting Canadians at this very moment, and it is something we have to be very serious and realistic about looking at what cybersecurity is, what it means and what we have to do as Canadians and as a Canadian government to combat attacks.

We know that the bill is something we support. We, of course, support the bill. Cybersecurity is very important, and as the member noted earlier, we have to make it right. We do not have time for a flawed bill or to race something through. Because of the advancements and because of the need to be very serious and realistic about cybersecurity, let us make sure we get the bill to committee and make sure then that we look at certain amendments that would get it right.

The question at this very moment is whether the government is taking this seriously enough. Despite a ban on Huawei announced by the government in May 2022, this week it was ascertained by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, as we were talking about IP commercialization in the science and research committee, that UBC is still working with Huawei after May 2022.

The minister assured us that Huawei was banned, that Huawei was done. Of course, there were reports months ago of a crackdown on IP being stolen and shared from Canadian universities. It has already been projected that 2023 will be the worst year for ransomware, for cybersecurity and, of course, for IP leaving Canada.

We have to take this seriously, and I know that members across the way have talked about it. Of course, this bill does that, but we need to be serious. We need to talk about cybersecurity, which means being realistic and bold in how we counter, and how we aid the west in winning, the war over cybersecurity.

There are amendments to the bill that we would like to see. Number one is to ensure that we protect and safeguard our national security and infrastructure. I know a member talked earlier about the different silos that exist. Probably the most important function is to ensure that silos in the government dealing with cybersecurity are talking to one another. The Americans deal with their cybersecurity concerns through the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Defense. They all work alongside each other to enhance the cybersecurity establishment that was developed in 2018.

Similarly, Canada has the Communications Security Establishment, part of which is the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, but as a member noted previously, is it talking to NSICOP and CSE? Are we making sure we are talking to the different departments? We know that the government is pretty large and unwieldy. We have to make sure that these departments are working together.

We also have to make sure we are looking after our businesses, as 40% of Canadian SMEs do not have any cybersecurity protection. It is going to be very costly for those businesses to implement that. As a business owner, I know the single biggest cost when it comes to cybersecurity is actually insurance. Insurance premiums just for cybersecurity attacks are going up and up. Every year they have increased by 20% to 30%. Of course, that is aligned with the $20 billion we are seeing from malware and ransomware across the world and the increase in cyber-attacks.

We have to make sure that we help our businesses, so perhaps we need to look at tax credits. One thing we can do is ensure that we share best practices and that businesses get support from the federal government to enhance their cybersecurity.

Another concern we have is how much power the minister will get, as the minister is supposed to get all the power. We have seen this with other bills. We have seen this in bills on the right to repair and interoperability. We have seen it in Bill C-27. Perhaps it is better to look at an ombudsman. We have talked about the Governor in Council and orders in council, but we want to hear from the security experts at committee to ascertain who exactly should be making these decisions instead of bringing them back to one minister. This bill right now could fit under the INDU committee and the industry minister, but it is going to the public safety committee, so already we have two different departments managing this bill. Why does one minister have to handle it? Why can it not be a broader process to ensure that we are seeing some congruence?

Privacy is something we talked about quite a bit. We will be debating Bill C-27 in the House tomorrow, and I certainly feel that privacy needs to be a fundamental human right. Part of this bill has different groups and organizations concerned about how we are protecting Canadians' right to privacy. When they lose their privacy, who is responsible for that? There will be a lot of different witnesses coming to committee. When we look at cybersecurity, we have to ensure we are protecting Canadians' fundamental right to privacy and ensure we are doing all we can so that if their privacy is breached, Canadians can find some relief.

We have talked about Bill C-27 and a tribunal, and maybe giving more powers to the Privacy Commissioner, who should have more power to look at whether we should go after criminals or organizations for breaches. We also have to look at the law and at what we are doing to go after criminals who are engaging in cyberwarfare and who continue to be a threat to Canadians.

Russia and China are very concerning right now, and there are a lot of different reasons for that. Russia is growing increasingly reliant on China as both an import market and an exporter of electronics. Both leaders are building a closer energy partnership on oil, gas, coal, electricity and nuclear energy. They are going to build the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline through the territory of Mongolia. This is important because Taiwan is coming up—

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's very sincere effort, I am sure, to lay that on the record. I am sure he is in shock that there was not unanimous consent. However, my hon. colleague can rest assured that, when it comes to climate change, we will not allow inaction to be the rule of the day and that we will absolutely continue to take action to make sure climate change does not ravage this planet.

I do want to pick up on the second-last comment that the hon. opposition House leader made, which were comments with respect to Family Day. I hope that he, and indeed all members in the House, take time with their families and with their constituents, and that they return to this place in good health.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-34 to amend the Investment Canada Act at second reading.

Upon our return on Monday, March 6, we will call Bill C-27 on the digital charter, at second reading.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill C-33 concerning the port system and railway safety.

Thursday will not only be the opportunity for my hon. colleague's favourite time of the week, another Thursday question, but we will also resume debate on Bill C-23 respecting historic places, at second reading.

On Friday, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-26, the cybersecurity legislation.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to join debates in the House of Commons. Here we are today. It is a Bloc opposition day, which is a day when the Bloc can choose anything it would like to put into a motion, and it is a bit of an unusual one today. The Bloc has chosen to spend our day and have a recorded vote on this motion, which purports to simply remind the federal government about the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Before I get too deep into this, I want to point out that it is my plan to share my time, so I want to make sure that we are clear about that.

The only way that one could really explain this debate to their constituents, or that I could explain it to my constituents, is that the Prime Minister thrives on dividing Canadians. The Prime Minister is always looking for different ways to divide Canadians. One of the tactics that the Prime Minister uses is to invent phony issues or phony responses to issues in order to divide political opposition. In this case, he has created a phony constitutional crisis over the use of the notwithstanding clause, and the Bloc has taken the bait; it has taken it hook, line and sinker.

The Prime Minister has divided Canadians throughout his tenure, east against west, Quebec against Alberta, Quebeckers against themselves, and all manner of Canadians over many different issues. The Liberals try to slice up and dice Canadians in enough different ways to squeak through and try to win elections with minimal support. That is something the Prime Minister has succeeded in doing.

However, now, instead of using a fairly precious opposition day to hold the government to account for its incredible, in fact spectacular, failures, the Bloc is burning an opposition day by falling right into one of the Prime Minister's traps. The person happiest to be having this debate today is the Prime Minister. While the House is rehashing decades-old long discussion points about the Constitution and reliving the now 40-year history of the charter and the notwithstanding clause, the Prime Minister is avoiding a debate about how his government has made life unaffordable for millions of Canadians.

We are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Inflation is at a 40-year high. People cannot afford groceries. People cannot afford to heat their homes. There are people in remote communities across Canada, including Quebec, who rely on heating oil to keep from freezing in the winter. Some of these remote residents are among the poorest people in Canada and they cannot afford to pay $1,000 or more per month for home heating fuel, but they cannot live in homes without heat in winter.

While we are debating this motion, the Prime Minister is avoiding accountability for how he has deliberately made life unaffordable for Canadians with his punitive taxes, in particular the carbon tax. Therefore, although it is always a pleasure to engage in debate in the House, I wish that on an opposition day we could spend the day talking about the failures of the current government, instead of giving the government a day off.

It is not quite that bad. I guess it must be conceded that, while we are talking about this motion, the government is not moving its own motions. We are at least going a day when the government does not get any closer to passing terrible bills, like, say, Bill C-11, wherein the government seeks to give itself unprecedented control over what Canadians, including Quebeckers, see, post or find on the Internet. In fact, it is a bit of a bizarre one, in that the Bloc has signalled that it will ultimately help the government pass Bill C-11 and give a federal agency the power to regulate what Quebeckers see and find and post on the Internet. It is a strange one, but at least while we are talking about this motion today, that bill is not advancing.

Under the current government, life is increasingly unaffordable for Canadians. Rents have doubled across Canada's 10 largest cities, interest rates are at a 23-year high and consumer debt is at record highs. Nearly half the people who have variable rate mortgages in Canada say they are going to need to sell or walk away from their homes this year because they cannot afford the payments on the homes they already own. There is nothing happening in this debate today that is going to help any of these Canadians struggling with affordability.

We are playing the Liberals' game today. We are avoiding these issues through the motion before us and engaging in this manufactured constitutional crisis while the Prime Minister dodges these questions about affordability. He is also dodging questions about the ethics of the government and himself, and about the steady stream of ministers who have broken the law, including himself.

Today, while we relive old debates about this issue, the Prime Minister is avoiding accountability for the repeated violations by himself and government members throughout their tenure, their eight years in office, and also the way they hand out billions of dollars in lucrative consulting contracts to their well-connected friends.

While this debate rages, no further progress is made in dealing with any of these issues or in the crisis of public safety that has emerged under the government. Violent crime is up 32%, gang homicide is up over 90%, property crime is up and fraud is up.

Intellectual property theft is an issue too. We see this in the failures of Bill C-34, which we debated yesterday and which is failing to protect Canadians from the effects of foreign investment by state-owned enterprises. Canada also remains a prime destination for international money laundering. These are real issues that impact Canadians in their neighbourhoods, and this is exactly the kind of debate we should be having.

The debate today, where this is avoided, is the kind of debate the Prime Minister wants. The Prime Minister wants a debate where he can avoid talking about how life has become unaffordable under the government and where he avoids accountability for his failure to deliver public services like the ability for the government to issue a passport and the ability of the government to process immigration applications, or any immigration services. Under the government, there is an immigration-file backlog of 2.5 million people.

The government is delighted to be talking about anything other than the colossal failures that have taken place under its watch. Its members are avoiding talking about the crisis of public finance that is brewing under the government, the spike in interest rates that is going to increasingly impair the government's ability to deliver basic services without cutting services or raising taxes as debt service costs continue to eat more and more of the federal budget.

This motion today is a lost opportunity to compel the government to be better. Oppositions should be about demanding better from the government through the process of debate to ensure the best ideas go forward, and challenging the government and identifying mistakes the government has made so it can correct them. That is how we serve our constituents. That is how we help ensure we have accountability from our governments and how we improve the services to Canadians.

I will end it there and let members ask questions, if they have any.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share that acknowledgement with my colleague from Jonquière. We have raised the issue several times since that transaction, initially in private with the minister responsible.

Notwithstanding the harmful effects of the transaction, if this had been an oil company, it would only have taken two shakes of a lamb's tail for Canada to stand up, invoke national security and block the transaction. In this case, however, it is only wood, it is only the forest, and it is only in Quebec, so they do not care.

If Bill C‑34 is any good, then it should cover the transaction that is shielding Sinar Mas and forced Uighur labour.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.

One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.

There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.

There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?

There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.

There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.

Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.

There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.

There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.

Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.

Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.

We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.

That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.

Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.

It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.

Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.

Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.

As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.

Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?

The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.

Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.

It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.

This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.

It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.

Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.

This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.

Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.

Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.

In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is true, and Dominic and Flaherty met, but that does not fit the agenda the Conservatives have.

I asked if there were contracts under Stephen Harper, and the answer was yes. There were contracts with the company and the Stephen Harper government knew Dominic, yet they are saying it was a friendly, Liberal company and we gave it all these contracts. I would suggest it is a gross exaggeration to give the impression that this company received contracts from the government because of a friendship or a political affiliation. The Conservative Party knows that, but it does not matter. The fact is that the Conservatives want to focus their attention on character assassination. That is really what it is all about.

At the end of the day, we need to recognize that at times there is a need for outside contracts. This is not the only government that has outside contracts. Whether it is provincial, municipal or indigenous governments, or whether it is the private sector or one of the many different corporations or non-profit groups, at times they all go outside in order to get contracts, as Stephen Harper did with the same company they are asking the public accounts to look at.

They talk about how there has been growth. No kidding, there has been growth. Have they not been around for the last three years? Do they not realize that we have been going through a pandemic? Do they not understand that there has been a great deal of pressure on Canada's civil servants in our public sector?

We developed programs virtually from ground zero. The CERB program is a good example. I do not know offhand what contracts were awarded to McKinsey & Company, but I can say that many of the programs we established did not exist prior to the pandemic. Of course, we are going to be doing some work outside of the civil service when we have those types of demands.

I would hazard a guess that not only did Canada do that, but also the United States and European countries did likewise. I suspect people will find that over the last three years there has been an increase in contracting out for consulting and so forth. I would challenge the Conservative brain trust to clearly demonstrate that I am wrong with that assertion, but I do not believe they will be able to. I am not talking about the brain trust. I am talking about the examples.

At the end of the day, I believe that governments around the world were put in a position over the last few years, because of the worldwide pandemic, to reach out. Different times dictate different actions.

I am not too sure why the debate today on Bill C-34 had to be sidetracked. It seems that a majority of the House was in favour of it. I would like to have seen that bill considered for passage or have more time for debate.

It will be interesting to get feedback from the official opposition, in particular, as to how many hours they feel that piece of legislation should be debated. The issue we are talking about now would have been a better discussion to have at the committee stage and have an actual report that provides more details.

I can honestly say when I posed the questions earlier, like asking about Stephen Harper, I did not know what the answer was. I went to the table to ask if I could get a copy of the report, because I was told earlier that it is a very short report. I thought there might have been some thinking that went into the process of having the motion brought forward based on a discussion or some sort of explanation other than an instruction.

There are a lot of relevant issues that could have been talked about, like the issue of the procurement process and what we have to go through in order to be able to procure and get the many types of contracts we acquire.

How does that differ from previous years? If we do a comparison between 2008 and 2016 or 2021, I would anticipate that because of the pandemic there would have been an increase compared to the years prior.

Everything depends on what is on the agenda and what is taking place, not only here in Ottawa but also around the country and around the world. Having some of that background information would be far more fruitful than a simple motion that appears in the report.

As I indicated, I was not sitting at the committee. However, based on the fact that, I suspect, it was not a unanimous motion that was brought forward, and I am sure the members across the way will tell me if I am wrong on this, and that it was done in such a fashion that it did not allow for a proper study in the standing committee, I would question the rationale behind that.

We have had very clear indication from the Prime Minister that the issue is being looked at by two ministers, the Minister of Procurement and the President of the Treasury Board. They will be looking into the matter and ultimately reporting back. There is a high level of accountability on contracts that are issued, and that will continue.

However, to what degree did the standing committee actually ask the questions that needed to be asked and provide some background information for the report before it came to the committee, as opposed to making one demand and one demand only? I do not quite understand the rationale behind it. That is something I would have expected to hear about when the mover of the motion brought it forward.

If members review concurrence motions, they will find that the mover of this motion is not new to this. He has likely moved more motions for concurrence than anyone else. He is a mischievous little guy, I would suggest. At the end of the day, I really do think it is a legitimate question to ask of the committee: Why was there not any opportunity to get some sort of background analysis in terms of justifying the position that the committee has taken?

I would hope that members, in addressing this motion, will see it for what it is. This is not a genuine attempt for more transparency and accountability. That is what it is not. What it is is an ongoing attempt by the official opposition, in particular, to engage in personal attacks and character assassination. Anything that can be perceived as making the government look corrupt, the Conservatives will bring it up and they will hammer it because they do not want to talk about policy.

If we were not debating this, we would be debating investments into Canada, the type of investments that create thousands and thousands of jobs. We would be talking about the many good things that are happening and providing constructive criticism, no doubt, in terms of where or how we can change public policy. However, I do not believe the Conservative Party is interested in public policy at all. I believe it is only interested in one thing, and I have made reference to that and I find it unfortunate.

I would leave it at the point of saying to the opposition members that when time allocation happens to come in on some piece of legislation, I hope each and every one of them will reflect on the way they chose today, as opposed to debating government bills, to stay the course of character assassination and to usurp government business and take it as another opposition opportunity for debate, as opposed to debating government legislation.

Bill C-34 is ultimately a good piece of legislation, and it would have been nice to continue that debate and have those additional three hours of debate. Through that, 15 or 20 MPs have lost the opportunity to contribute to that debate, but we will have to wait and see.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting process that we are going through today. I plan to speak on the issue, but we need to have a sense of why we are debating it today.

I would say I am surprised, but I am not. It is more a sense of disappointment. One would think that the Conservative Party, at some point, would recognize that what Canadians are looking for is leadership. Today is an amplification of what the Conservative agenda is all about. It is not to talk about its own plans or policy ideas, with cryptocurrency being the exception. At the end of the day, Conservatives are more focused on character assassination.

This is the reason I posed the questions earlier to the opposition, both members. The image they try to portray is one of corruption, yet in the answers they gave one would then have to try to make the connection to Stephen Harper. After all, Stephen Harper and his government were probably closer to the company and individual in question. I would say there is a very good chance, just based on the answers that were provided.

The Conservatives are very good at stating something inside and even outside the chamber that is factually incorrect. I suspect what we are seeing today is another attempt by the Conservative Party to look under all the different rocks to try to find something with which they can attack individuals on the government side, to give a false impression that the government is corrupt. That is the type of thing we have witnessed for eight years from the Conservative Party.

Today we are supposed to be talking about Bill C-34. Bill C-34 is about investing in Canada and protecting Canadians from a security point of view. Tomorrow is an opposition day. Why is that important? I believe that the Conservatives are once again discussing a motion that was passed in a committee.

I would like to look at how the motion passed in committee. I was not even in the committee, so I will have to speculate. I had to look at the report. It is not a very complicated report. I would summarize it by saying a majority of individuals on the committee got together and passed the motion so that the Conservative Party could debate a concurrence motion in the House. Conservatives across the way heckled, “Hear, hear.” That is what took place, as confirmed by the Conservative opposition.

In essence, they are hijacking another day of debate, when we are supposed to be talking about Bill C-34, so they can talk about this issue. They will say they should be able to talk about this issue. The rules do allow for that. We have opposition days. We have an opposition day tomorrow. One would think the Conservatives, if they were genuine in wanting to deal with this, would not need to coerce the Bloc, the New Democrats and I am not too sure about the Greens in bringing forward this detailed report. I say detailed report, but I could read it in a minute. That is how detailed the entire report is.

I have sat on standing committees, not too many, and they do some fantastic work. However, at times they get a little too political. When one does not even have any sort of background, details or real explanation and when all one has is a statement, which is the report, I need to question what the actual motivation was.

I believe the Conservatives have conned the other opposition parties. They have come up with a way that they can get a bonus opposition day. The ironic thing is they are going to be criticizing the government in the future for not calling Bill C-34. They are going to cry and say that they want more debate time on Bill C-34 or other government legislation and will ask why the government will not allow for it, yet they are wasting government time on this end.

It is truly amazing how the Conservative Party is so focused on the issue of corruption and does not care about the average Canadian and what Canadians are going through.

Let me read the report. This is the entire report:

That the Auditor General be called upon to conduct, as soon as possible, a performance and value for money audit of the contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company since January 1, 2011, by any department, agency or Crown corporation.

That is the entire report. I figure the 2011 was probably a compromise. The Bloc probably said that they needed to go beyond just the Liberal years to include some of the Conservative years. Maybe they had to compromise a little in order to get the agreement to ultimately get it to pass so the Conservative Party could have another bonus opposition day at the expense of debating government legislation. That is what I suspect.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am here and I am very happy to answer the question.

We will certainly continue to bring crime rates down across the country. I hope we can work together on this issue.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-34.

This is the national security review of investments modernization act. We will continue with the debate on this bill Monday and Wednesday of next week.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday, February 7, and Thursday, February 9, shall be allotted days.