Debates of June 13th, 2017

Foreign Investment

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the scandal surrounding the sale of a high-tech company to Chinese interests has now taken on international proportions because of this government's negligence.

This morning, The Globe and Mail reported that a commission is looking into the matter. Commissioner Michael Wessel said that Canada is “jeopardizing its own security interests to gain favour with China”, and that “the U.S. military...should immediately review their purchases...to determine what security risks might arise.”

Now the Americans are the ones lecturing us. This is ridiculous.

Will the Prime Minister stand up and own up to yet another mistake?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my colleague. National security is an absolute priority for our government. All transactions reviewed under the Investment Canada Act are subject to a multi-stage security review process. We have never compromised on national security.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we heard earlier, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

The national security review process was not followed. The government keeps playing word games. Playing word games with parliamentarians is one thing, but now the U.S. military is finding the government's negligence distinctly unfunny.

When will the government realize it made a mistake and is jeopardizing our national security?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, we actually value the advice given by the national security experts. The feedback they gave us was based on the fact that they did their due diligence. They did their homework, they followed the process, and based on that feedback and advice, we took the course of action to proceed under the Investment Canada Act. We never have and we never will compromise on national security.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals brushed off the concerns of two former CSIS directors and a former ambassador to China regarding the slapdash sunny-ways sale of Canadian defence technology to a communist dictatorship. While the Liberals may be willing to jeopardize our security interests selling Norsat for a trade deal with China, they have clumsily put at risk relations with our best friend, trade partner, and protector.

Now that a congressional committee is urging the Pentagon to review this risky deal, will the Liberals order a formal national security review?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we have done our homework. We have followed the process. National experts have consulted our allies as well. All transactions under the Investment Canada Act are subject to a national security review. We never have and we never will compromise on national security.

With respect to the overall objective of the Investment Canada Act, we are looking forward to seeing more investments in Canada to grow the economy, to create jobs and opportunities, and to strengthen the middle class, because that is our number one priority.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans are the latest to sound the alarm bells over this takeover, and just yesterday, before the national security committee of this Parliament, when I asked the question directly to the acting director of CSIS, he made it clear that the decision around security due diligence was not made by CSIS, was not made by the security agency. It was made by the Liberal cabinet. It made the decision. That was the testimony before committee.

When will the government make it clear to everyone that it put Canadian security interests ahead of Chinese security interests?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. We never have and we will never will compromise on national security. We will always advance our national interests.

More importantly, unlike the members opposite, we actually value the feedback and advice we get from our national security experts. Based on their advice, based on their feedback, we have proceeded. We have been very clear about this process. This is a multi-step review process. We have done our homework, we have done our due diligence, and we will always make sure we follow the advice given to us by our national security experts.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government gets a fail on doing its homework.

The act is very clear. When the government takes a look at an investment, it determines whether or not it takes that second step, which is to do a national security review. It determined it did not need to take that second step. Eminent people have been coming forward to say that the government should have slowed its role and should have actually taken that step to look further into the details.

I am going to ask the minister a very clear question. Why did he not order a national security review? Is this not in contravention of our defence policy interests?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, did Canada's national security agencies examine this deal? Yes, they did. Did they consult our allies? Yes, they did. Do they have all the facts? Yes, they do. Did the government follow the security agencies' recommendations? Yes, we did.

Let me be absolutely clear: we never have compromised and we never will compromise on national security.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, then why did the minister not take the very simple step of requesting a full national security review? What is the anxiety on the other side in dealing with the Chinese? Is it trade matters? Does it have to do with something else that the Canadian Parliament has not been informed of?

The reason the Investment Canada Act was amended to include this part was to deal with these situations. The Liberals may be blind to it; we are certainly not blind to it. Are the Liberals going to do the right and proper thing, protect Canadian interests, and order the national security review?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, the member can speculate, make innuendo, and come up with all these theories, but the bottom line is we followed the process.

We have been very clear. We have been very transparent with Canadians. We never will compromise on national security. More importantly, we will listen to the advice and feedback given to us by our national security experts. We followed that advice.

Let me be very clear: when it comes to our economic interests, our number one priority is to the grow the economy and create jobs. That is why, over the last six months, close to a quarter of a million good-quality, full-time, resilient jobs have been created in the Canadian economy.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are going to sign a tax information exchange agreement with Cook Islands, a well-known tax haven. The Minister of Finance is justifying this by saying that it will make it harder for the wealthy to hide their money, but that is false. The only thing the agreement will achieve is allow the wealthy to avoid paying taxes.

By signing such agreements, Canada is standing in the way of the international community in the fight against tax havens, which have even been condemned by the U.K. finance minister.

When will the Minister of Finance stop helping her rich Bay Street friends hide their money in tax havens?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the government is strongly committed to protecting the fairness of the Canadian tax system. That is why we have invested nearly $1 billion over the past two years to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Our unprecedented investments are showing real results. We recovered $13 billion last year, 122 Canadian taxpayers named in the Panama Papers are being audited, and criminal investigations of certain taxpayers are already underway.

We will have other announcements to make later today. We are working very hard, and the net is tightening.

International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Liberals are protecting are wealthy interests.

Under NAFTA, Canada is the most sued country in the world under ISDS provisions in chapter 11. We have a progressive court system, yet we are continually forced to defend ourselves under an unfair and unaccountable process. The Liberals cannot continue to leave Canadians in the dark when it comes to their priorities.

When will the government come clean with Canadians about their trade priorities and move to eliminate chapter 11 from NAFTA?

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said on numerous occasions, we are ready to come to the negotiation table, something the previous Conservative government failed to do when it was their turn to look to NAFTA and get it going.

As we have seen, NAFTA has been modified 11 times throughout its history. The Prime Minister, all the ministers of cabinet, and indeed the entirety of the House are dedicated to the Canada-U.S. relationship. We are going to stand up for Canadian values and our economic interests as we have always done.

Canadian Heritage

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, controversy is swirling around the Liberals again; it is in their DNA. Conflicts of interest abound at the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Apparently her chief of staff, Leslie Church, attended a number of meetings to discuss important plans between the department and Google, where she used to work.

We know that Google has special access to the minister's office and her team and that changes are set to be made to the Broadcasting Act.

Can the minister assure us that the process for making these changes will be independent, transparent, and free from political interference?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, creative industries are facing challenges in the digital era. The minister has met with all the major platforms about our reforms on Canadian content in the digital era.

Ms. Church's expertise and in-depth knowledge of the digital landscape make her an essential asset in evaluating how to better support the sector during this transition. Ms. Church has always been completely transparent about her former employer, including with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, another day and another conflict of interest in the heritage minister's office. We know now that Leslie Church, the chief of staff to the heritage minister, has met on at least six occasions with Google representatives. Leslie, of course, was the former head of communications, it just so happens, at Google before the minister hired her.

The law requires ministers and staff to avoid real and apparent conflicts of interest. It appears to me that the minister has failed yet again.

Why did the minister allow her chief of staff to engage in this clear conflict of interest?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that creative industries are going through a period of disruption brought on by the digital shift. The minister has met with all major digital platforms as part of her review of Canadian content in the digital age.

Ms. Church's experience, expertise, and broad knowledge of the digital landscape are essential to our assessment of how to best support this sector during this transition. She has been fully transparent about her former employment, including with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Access to Information

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary for Shared Services Canada brushed off our call to have the deleted email scandal referred to the director of public prosecutions.

Members will recall that I asked why this matter has not been sent to the director, because the emails were deleted by a Liberal Party riding association president who is also an employee of Shared Services.

The Attorney General, a Liberal, and the parliamentary secretary, a former Liberal Party national director, should not be even close to this matter. Why will the minister not do the right thing and refer it to the director of public prosecutions?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that our government expects all of our employees to meet the highest level of ethical behaviour in decision-making, as set out by the values and ethics code for the public sector.

Shared Services, whose management dealt with this issue directly, took the situation very seriously, immediately launched an investigation, and notified the Information Commissioner, who in turn referred this matter to the Attorney General of Canada, as is customary.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when a Liberal insider deletes 398 pages of emails off a government server, the last people Canadians trust to investigate this are Liberal ministers and Liberal parliamentary secretaries.

This is a clear violation of the law. It must be referred to public prosecutions because Liberals investigating Liberals is anything but open, transparent, and accountable.

What are the Liberals hiding? What were in those emails that they do not want anyone to see?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all processes have been followed and that the Information Commissioner, who is an independent authority, referred this matter to the Attorney General of Canada. I can assure the hon. member this matter was dealt with expeditiously by the management of Shared Services Canada. I can assure the hon. member that his unwarranted attacks on the independent public servants who go about their business every day and do things by the book are also very well-noted.

This is more of what we have come to expect from these people on the other side of the House.

Families, Children and Social Development

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal child care announcement is a drop in the bucket, and those on the front lines are giving it a failing grade.

The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada says the Liberals' approach “goes against all the evidence that quality child care is critical to the healthy development of all children”.

Liberals attacked the NDP's plan for universal affordable child care, saying it was too little and too slow. However, even Paul Martin's child care plan offered more annual funding than this one.

Why are the Liberals checking a box rather than giving real support to Canadian families?