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.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

In December 1973, Parliament enacted the Foreign Investment Review Act, which was known as FIRA, to deal with the issue of foreign investors controlling Canadian industry, trade and commerce, and the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic future.

These investments would be allowed to proceed only if the government had determined that they were, or were likely to be, of significant benefit to Canada. This net benefit test still exists today, but much has changed given rising national security concerns that necessitate new measures. Let me elaborate.

In June 2017, Hytera Communications, a company owned by the Chinese Communist Party, acquired Norsat International, a B.C. telecom company. Just like that, a firm backed by an authoritarian regime took over an essential service provider here in Canada.

One would think this takeover would have raised some red flags, but it did not, not for the Liberal government at least. If it had acted rationally, the government would have conducted a national security review into Hytera. However, after eight years in power, it is clear that rationality is in short supply these days.

It did not bat an eye when, as all of this was taking place, our own Border Services Agency was using equipment from Hytera. We are talking about a company that has been charged with 21 counts of espionage. That company has been banned from doing business with our neighbour to the south. Up until that point, the Liberals have said that business is business, even when it means letting a hostile regime gain access to our essential services.

This sort of lax attitude toward issues of national security is clearly a problem. What is even more problematic is that for five long years after the Hytera fiasco, the government has not learned from its mistakes.

In 2020, it gave out a contract to Nuctech, a company founded by the son of a Chinese Community Party secretary general. It would not have taken a national security review to figure out who the company's founder was. A quick Google search would have sufficed.

It was not just standard, run-of-the-mill work that this company with Chinese Communist Party connections was doing. Nuctech was supplying X-ray equipment, of all things, to almost 200 Canadian embassies and consulates.

Two years ago, it looked like the government was changing its course when it updated its national security review guidelines. This was not the case, or at least it certainly was not the case when the Minister of Industry greenlit the takeover of a Canadian lithium mine by a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

Once again, the opportunity was right there. The minister could have requested a national security review. The review framework was even new and improved, or so they would have us think. However, the minister did not act. Delays, half measures and slaps on the wrist. Those have been the Liberal responses to national security threats throughout the past eight years.

Huawei is a perfect example of this. By 2021, each and every one of our allies within the Five Eyes had already banned Huawei from using their 5G networks. For years, my colleagues and I have been calling on the government to do the right thing: Listen to our allies, listen to security experts and ban Huawei from accessing 5G.

Reluctantly, and far too late, the Liberals finally took our advice and took a stand against the Chinese Communist Party. That was less than a year ago. With the Liberal government's dismal track record in matters related to national security, Bill C-34 feels like too little, too late. It is like the goalie letting in eight goals, then coming onto the ice at the last minute and saying, “Don't worry guys. I've got this.”

To be fair, this bill does address Canada's national security. It is a policy area where the government has been complacent for far too long. For that reason, I am prepared to support the bill at this stage, as long as it can be strengthened in committee.

For a while, a lot of us had the naive idea that these regimes were emerging partners, and they were slowly moving toward the democratic norm. Putin's war changed all of that, and it is time that Canada acted accordingly. It is time for a reality check. Hostile foreign governments want to subvert and undermine this country. The threat is real and the threat is here. Canadians are well aware. A few weeks ago, all that Canadians had to do was look up and see a Chinese surveillance balloon flying at 60,000 feet.

Bill C-34 responds to this new reality, but not well enough and not in its current form. The bill puts the power to request national security reviews in the hands of the Minister of Industry, the same minister whose predecessor did not even request a security review when Hytera took over an essential Canadian telecom provider. It is the same minister who, even after strengthening the security review guidelines in 2021, chose not to investigate the Chinese takeover of a critical Canadian mining company.

The bill is only as strong as the minister's scrutiny, whoever that minister may be in the future. Conservatives believe matters of such importance should be scrutinized by all of cabinet to make sure nothing slips through the cracks.

There are also existing problems with the Investment Canada Act that are not even addressed in Bill C-34. For no apparent reason, when a state-owned enterprise invests in a Canadian company, a national security review is only triggered if the Canadian company has assets worth more than $454 million. This provision has it all wrong. It is not about the size of the company that is being acquired. It is about the security risks that would inherently arise when a hostile state-owned company gains control over a critical service or product here in Canada.

Bill C-34 needs a provision that would trigger an automatic national security review when a state-owned enterprise invests in Canada. The threshold should be zero dollars, not $454 million. Also, the bill would only deal with share purchases and non-asset purchases. Therefore, in theory, there is a roundabout way that foreign investors could acquire assets in Canada and completely circumvent the legislation. It is clearly a loophole that needs to be plugged.

Since 2017, Chinese companies have been governed by the national intelligence law. This law compels every citizen and every company to hand over data to Chinese intelligence agencies. For almost six years, so much Canadian information has gone to China's autocratic government that it is hard to even quantify. We need to put an end to this, but right now, Bill C-34 would not do that.

Bill C-34 needs a presumption against allowing the takeover of Canadian companies by China's designated state-owned entities. It needs a reformed net benefit test to better account for the potential effects of a transaction on the broader innovation ecosystem, with a particular focus on protecting intellectual property and human capital. It needs automatic review of transactions involving sensitive sectors, such as defence, artificial intelligence and rare earth minerals. It also needs a mandatory national security review for state-owned enterprises where national security is a concern.

The act would not attempt to change definitions of state-owned enterprises or look at the issue of what constitutes control. One would not have to buy 50% of a company to control it. Someone could buy small percentages of it, get a number of seats on the board or change management, which Hytera has done.

It is clear that Canada needs to improve these protections. Bill C-34 would be a small step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I mentioned only one flaw in this legislation because we were pressed for time, but this is definitely another one.

The Canada Investment Act has not been reviewed in a long time. Its predecessor, the Foreign Investment Review Act, was with us for many years. It was drafted at a time when we were concerned about international corporations taking over our energy sector. Today, the world is different. Unfortunately, Bill C-34 does not pick up on all of these things.

I am confident that the industry committee will look at this thoroughly in its line-by-line review and the bill will come back in a much better shape than it is today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's excellent speech. In fact, the last two speeches have been superb speeches on Bill C-34.

The member raised an issue around recommendation 1 from the industry committee report on state-owned enterprises. I would like to ask him something along a similar vein. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry was at the House of Commons industry committee this week. I asked him about the acquisition of the Tanco lithium mine in Manitoba, the only lithium-producing mine in Canada, by the Chinese government in 2015, and why he had not included that in his divestiture request of Chinese state-owned enterprises a few months ago. He said that he could not do it, that he could not go back far enough.

There is nothing in this bill that will allow, when a regime changes, for the minister to go back and revisit a transaction when a regime becomes less co-operative as part of the world framework. I wonder if the member could comment on whether or not there should be changes to the bill to allow for that kind of review to go back further.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about foreign investment in Canada: What are the benefits? What are the risks?

Canada is a large nation by geography, but a relatively small nation when measured by population or by economic power. We are a small contributor, relatively speaking, to the world economy, but we are punching above our weight class, and the only way we can do that is by being a trading nation. That means we have to sell what the world wants and buy what the world has to offer, but we also have to be open to foreign investment, to allow investors to contribute to our economy but also to make a good return on that investment.

This money is very mobile. A big hypothetical pension fund, for example, with a lot of money to invest, does not come to Canada because we are nice people or, as the Prime Minister says, because the world needs more Canada. That is just naive. Investment money goes where it can earn a rate of return. It is a very competitive market.

The LNG sector in Canada is a very good example of that. LNG Canada is building a large export terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, for shipping clean, ethical liquid natural gas to world markets, to our trading partners, so they can replace dirtier burning coal. This is a partnership among some very large international corporations, such as Shell Canada, Korea Gas Corporation and Mitsubishi Corporation, and there are a lot of foreign investment dollars involved here.

This is what the world needs more of: more Canadian, clean, ethical liquid natural gas to help our trading partners get off coal. Unfortunately, this is not according to our Prime Minister, who just recently told the German chancellor that there is no business case to be made for Canada supplying Europe with liquid natural gas so that Europe can reduce or get rid of its dependency on Russia. Investors need to hear that kind of talk only once from our Prime Minister and they head for the exits.

Happily, for the investors, there is a place for them to go. Late last year, the White House announced that it will work with the industry to ensure that U.S. liquid natural gas is available to replace Russian natural gas in the European market. Apparently there is a business case to be made, after all. The world smiles at Canada's naïveté.

That is where we are after eight years of Liberal mismanagement of our economy. The fundamental problem with the way the Liberal government has been managing, or rather mismanaging, our economy is that it does not look to the fundamental economic principles.

Take, for example, our economic productivity metrics. Canada lags, in a significant way, behind our largest trading partner, the United States. For every dollar that American workers pump into their GDP, their Canadian counterparts add 75¢ to our national economy. This does not mean that we are not working as hard as the Americans. We may be working harder than the Americans. It is just that we do not have the tools. We do not have the best tools available. We are lagging in investing in our tech sector and we are not investing aggressively in growth industries.

Also, there is too much red tape, too much useless bureaucracy, which just gets in the way of hard-working Canadians using their ingenuity to grow our economy. This is what our leader, the member for Carleton, calls “gatekeepers”, who are just standing in the way. Let us get rid of them.

Economists recognize that this productivity lag is a big, significant problem for Canada. Even our current Minister of Finance mentions this in her 2022 budget report and in her fall economic statement. She calls it “Canada's Achilles heel”. She understands the problem, but it is too bad that her boss does not seem to be paying attention to that.

The former minister of finance actually underlines that. He agrees with the current Minister of Finance. In his recent book, he says this: “productivity improvement is the most important issue on our agenda”. It is not “one of the most important” but “the most important”. However, in his words, “neither the PM nor the Prime Minister’s Office saw the need to address our anemic growth”.

That is where we are. After eight years of Liberal mismanagement, everything seems broken, including our economy. What Canada needs is a strong Conservative government that understands the basic principles of economics and how to grow the economy for the benefit of all, and that means working with foreign investors to attract investment money to Canada.

When we are talking about foreign investment, it is important, in my opinion, to reflect on where we are today in relation to where we were 50 years ago.

In 1974, when the Investment Canada Act's predecessor, the Foreign Investment Review Act, was the law, intangible assets, which are things that cannot be picked up with a forklift, ideas in our head like intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks and patents, accounted for only 17% of the S&P 500's assets by dollar value.

If we fast-forward a decade, when the old act was replaced with the current Investment Canada Act, which we are talking about today, the intangible assets ratio had doubled to 32%. After that, it just accelerated. Today, it stands at roughly 90% of the S&P 500's total assets by dollar value.

Let us move a little closer to home, to the Toronto Stock Exchange, a less technology-driven exchange. There, the comparable number is 70%. The European comparable number is 77%. This is hard data that Canada lags in developing our knowledge-based economy, and that is part of the reason why our productivity numbers are lagging.

Where are we after eight years of a Liberal government? We have low productivity numbers, a lack of investor confidence in Canada and a lack of focus on our knowledge-based economy. It really is time for a change at the top.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. The parliamentary Committee on Industry, Science and Technology studied this a couple of years ago. It is too bad that the minister did not pick up on all the recommendations. That report highlights the need for foreign investment in the tech industry, but it also points out some of the challenges and risks.

If we are attracting money from non-friendly, non-democratic countries, they may profit more from that than we do. One example is a state-owned enterprise funding a research chair at a world-class Canadian university. At the end of the whole process, after a lot of contributions by Canadian brainpower into new intellectual property, the foreign company ends up owning it. That is a big risk. I am happy to see that the federal government has finally zeroed in on that.

One of the recommendations, recommendation 1, as my colleague mentioned already, was not picked up by the minister when he drafted Bill C-34. That recommendation would require that the valuation threshold for prospective acquisitions of control of Canadian assets or shares by state-owned or state-controlled enterprises must be reduced to zero. That being said, every proposed transaction that would transfer direct or indirect control of a Canadian corporation or assets to a foreign-owned enterprise would be scrutinized. I agree with that. It is too bad it was not picked up in the bill.

We will be supporting Bill C-34 at second reading, in principle, so that it can go to committee, where hopefully it will pick up recommendation 1. We will work diligently at committee to make sure that Bill C-34 comes back better for third reading.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House to talk about a very important issue. Today we are talking about investment, national defence and security. The world is a far different place today than it was even a year ago, and there has been an concerted effort by hostile foreign powers to undermine western democracies, undermine our national security, undermine our economic interests and undermine democracy itself.

Before I continue, I want to mention that I am going to be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The west has basically been sleepwalking into the realignment of global power, and if we do not wake up, our lives and interests will be impaired, or worse, children across the world may not have the same freedoms that our children have in our democracies, like independence and the other freedoms we enjoy.

Not only have we allowed nefarious actions to occur right under our noses, but we have actually helped fund this global realignment. In 2018, Canada gave $250 million to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is largely viewed as expanding China’s influence and power in the world. We have been funding it. This is the context that we have to keep in mind when we think about Bill C-34 and this investment act.

These are largely viewed as some of the more significant amendments to this act in well over a decade. The bill provides new ministerial authorities and focuses on special business sectors of interest to the country. I give the government credit for bringing this forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will allow for proper scrutiny in this House, but I want to talk about a few issues.

The first is reciprocity. A fundamental principle in all trade or any real commercial relationship is that each party gets something and gives something in return. There is some exchange of equal value. This is not necessarily the case with what has been happening in global trade with Canada. Certainly it is not the case with how companies and entities invest in Canada.

Canadian companies want to invest in other countries or companies housed in other countries, but Canada does not have that opportunity. Canadian companies do not have that opportunity. It is always puzzling to understand why Canada allows companies and entities that have links to foreign governments to invest in and purchase Canadian assets when Canadian companies themselves are not allowed to make the same investments in those other countries.

The fundamental principle of reciprocity does not exist when Canadian firms cannot make the same investments that we allow companies from other countries to make here. Sometimes those companies are either owned or heavily influenced by a foreign power. Whether that foreign power is hostile or not, geopolitics changes. As we have seen in the last year, things have shifted significantly.

I submit that some of these companies and countries, frankly, are laughing at us all the way to the bank. I am beginning to think that they might think we are suckers. What I am worried about is that they are right. We do not have to look hard to find some examples of what I am talking about that make us scratch our heads.

In 2017, the government did not request a security review of Norsat when it was purchased by Hytera Communications, which is partially owned by the People’s Republic of China. Just recently, at the end of 2022, it was exposed that the government awarded a hardware contract for RCMP communications equipment to a Norsat subsidiary. The United States blacklisted Hytera because it “poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons”.

Where was Canada's review? Was Canada informed by the United States about its findings? Did Canada do the due diligence we would expect it would normally do before a contract like this is awarded, or maybe even before a transaction is approved?

There are more examples, but members can see that our approach can actually weaken our relationships with our partners. We are not holding up our end of the bargain when it comes to national security and defence, and I worry that some countries think we are not taking it very seriously anymore.

I want to talk a bit about the governance we see at some state-owned enterprises and some of the entities that are owned, controlled or heavily influenced by foreign governments. The issue is that the objectives of these entities are not necessarily commercially minded first. They have some other interests potentially at play. They might be interested in locking up the supply of critical minerals. They might be interested in trying to get information, whether that is intellectual property, communications or information about national defence. Proper governance is important for ensuring we have faith in a free market. If these entities are not playing by the same rules and the same principles, we cannot trust all of their motives. We have to be skeptical.

In the last Parliament, a very good proposal was made by the industry committee that when a state-owned enterprise is involved, there is no threshold too low to trigger a review. That is a reasonable approach. When there is a state-owned enterprise involved or an entity that is heavily influenced by a foreign power or could be heavily influenced by a foreign power, the government needs to think about the best interests of Canada.

Who knows what these critical assets will be in the future? I am not sure 20 or 30 years ago people realized that lithium would be as important as it is now, but what about water in the future? Is that something we should be discussing now, or should we have some more flexibility to discuss that?

The other issue is assets versus shares. One can sell a business by selling assets and one can sell a business by selling the shares in the company that owns the assets, but right now we are only looking at issues where shares are purchased. We are exposing ourselves to a loophole that companies and entities can plan around, especially those that have hostile foreign interests.

There are some expanded powers for the minister, and that is okay if we believe and trust the minister. I think the minister in this case is a wonderful individual, and I do trust his judgment. However, we might get a dud in the future. We need to make sure we have proper oversight of the minister, so the Governor in Council and cabinet should have expanded power. Maybe there should even be a third body.

We are required to be stewards of our assets in this country. Defence and security sometimes is more costly. We might not be able to sell to the highest bidder if it undermines our national security. We need to be working to secure Canada's best interests for her future. I hope that the minister and the government are open to amendments.

I appreciate the fact that this has been brought forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation. It will enable the committee to do some good work, I believe, and hear from some important stakeholders. However, I view this legislation as merely a starting point for a conversation and hope to see it enhanced at committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important issue this morning. Before I close, I need to say a very happy birthday to Amanda Philp today, who I am sure is watching this and will see it on repeat a number of times.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate that, but I'm just not satisfied as to our accountability levels here. I want us to have a national auto strategy.

I'll leave that behind for now. I want to get to something else. I do appreciate.... I know that's not the intent of these things, but it's a clear example of how disastrous the policy can be if it's not wielded properly. It may sound like $3 million is not a lot of money, but it is. When we export these jobs, it's really poor.

I want to switch channels a little bit. What are you doing internally with regard to retention of staff? I know this is totally different from where we were, but we're looking at challenges in all of the sector.

The minister has several fronts, Bill C-34, Bill C-27, a whole series of things. What are we doing internally to make sure that the public service has the skill sets necessary to help provide the proper information for the minister in the research? What are we doing for retention of individuals as we negotiate more new things than ever before?

I'll leave it there. That's my time. Thanks.

[Simon Kennedy]

I would just have maybe a general answer to that. There is a formal process that can be triggered to get additional time, and you get put into a formal process, but as a general rule, for any investment that comes across our desk or that is drawn to our attention—and this can be even just intelligence that's gleaned from the press—there is a proactive effort to look at potentially problematic investments.

The national security community is involved in that. We work very closely with our partners in the Public Safety ministry, the RCMP, CSIS and others, and it's through that assessment process that typically a judgment is made as to whether a particular investment presents a concern. If it presents a concern, then additional measures can be taken or the investment can be blocked. As you might understand, I'm not really in a position to talk about those particular historic investments.

What I can say is that the tempo of activity and level of scrutiny have generally gone up significantly. If you look at the statistics, that's very clear. We publish an annual report with statistics on the use of the Investment Canada Act, and the numbers of blocks, reviews and so on have generally been going up.

With Bill C-34, our hope, as the minister explained—is to have a more flexible set of tools that will allow us to be even that much more responsive going forward.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It is fundamental. I'll go back to questions from colleagues that I received earlier. What Bill C-34 has tried to do is to provide the minister with more agility. We need better tools to protect our national security. We need to have more enforcement measures. We also need to be able to seek undertakings and impose conditions. That is something that our colleagues in the United States do regularly when they look at these transactions.

Overall, I think it's about modernizing an instrument that has served Canada very well. That's why I'm very keen to work with the committee to make sure we have all of the tools needed to protect our national security. As I was saying before in one of the answers, today national security and economic prosperity go hand in hand.

I'll go back to questions from Mr. Perkins, I think at the beginning, asking why this and that. I think what I'm asking of Parliament is to make sure that the ministers of industry and future ministers have all of the tools at their disposal to better protect national security in Canada, and our economic security as well. That's because we see state and non-state actors looking at what we're doing in Canada.

To your point, when I said no to the takeover of three lithium mines by Chinese companies, I think it sent a strong message that we take these matters very seriously. We rely on advice from our intelligence agencies that work with Minister Mendicino, the Minister of Public Safety.

I think our allies around the world look at that and say that Canada is serious when it comes to national security. It's the same thing when it comes to research security. We have to engage with eyes wide open to make sure we protect our assets, while allowing for foreign investments to come to Canada, for sure, but at the same time making sure that we protect our national security.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Perfect.

Minister, you also have Bill C‑34 in the House. If passed, it will update the Investment Canada Act. We're looking forward to seeing this bill come to this committee, of course.

I represent a very diverse riding. There are immigrants. There are new Canadians who have come from China and from Iran. There is a huge Armenian community. There's a South Asian community. A lot of these entrepreneurs are now Canadian, but they weren't born in this country, so they are actually paying special attention to this piece of legislation.

Can you tell the committee why is it important to protect Canada's national security interests through updating this bill?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm going to move over to Medicago. It highlights a problem that we had.

In Windsor, we had Nemak, which was in the automotive sector, and the previous minister, Minister Bains, provided some federal funding for them. They took the innovation and the money, and then they actually moved it to Mexico, including the plant.

What I'm worried about is whether in the current bill that you have, Bill C-34, there's actually going to be enough support in there to stop that from happening. The Nemak example is one for which basically we innovated new transmission equipment and then they moved it to Mexico. They moved all the jobs. They took our innovation. They took all of the work we had done. They laid off a bunch of workers. We lost that.

Medicago is a similar situation that's taking place here. What can you tell us? Is there an update on that?

How do we stop this from happening?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You're the busiest, by far, and that's a good thing.

I want to take one issue up, though. You left Bill C-27 in the hands of us, the members of Parliament. I want to correct the record here. Has your House leader asked for time for Bill C-27? My information is that your House leader has not. Bill C-27 cannot go back to the House of Commons, unless your party brings it there. You brought Bill C-34 instead.

Why won't your House leader bring Bill C-27 to the floor of the House of Commons, if you think it's so important, if you're going to lay the blame on committee and other members of Parliament?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm listening to them. It's important to do so.

As you know, however, there are quite a few priorities to deal with at the same time. For example, you've just mentioned bills C‑27 and C‑34.

It is of course important to reform the Copyright Act. I'm working on that with my colleague, heritage minister Rodriguez. I listened to what the industry had to say. I also heard from the universities.

It's definitely one of our priorities. We're going to continue to work with the industry. I have a great deal of respect for creators. They make an important contribution. We need to be there for them and we are going to continue to do just that.

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.