Debates of Sept. 19th, 2017

Social Development

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

Madam Speaker, I am following up on a discussion with the minister upon the announcement, with great pride, of the new parental leave provisions. My question, at least six months ago now, was when is the government going to implement legislative measures that would actually help women and families on the ground. This was a measure that appeared to be targeted more at wealthy parents needing extra parental leave. It was a disappointment that it did not actually put more money in the pockets of young families.

Today, I tabled an interim report arising from evidence we have been hearing throughout this year at the status of women committee on the imperative to close the legislative gap, for the federal government to do everything it can to remove barriers to women's economic success and bring economic justice for women.

We heard a lot of testimony at the committee that described a cycle that young families get into, and young women in particular. Not being able to find affordable child care, a family will have to make a decision about which parent will drop out of the workforce to accommodate that new family pressure, and because we still do not have federal pay equity legislation, it tends to be the female parent who is the one who earns the lower wage. Plus, women traditionally continue to do a disproportionate share of unpaid care. Therefore, it is the woman who drops out of the workforce, generally. When she re-enters the workforce, she is more likely to take on part-time and precarious work, for which there is no social safety net around employment insurance. We still do not have employment insurance that is designed for the shorter periods of work that part-time positions have. We certainly know in Canada, with the loss of good manufacturing jobs and full-time positions, there has been a real movement toward short-term contracts and precarious work. It particularly affects young women and young people generally.

Then we see later in life that, because they have been lower wage earners throughout their careers, women are more likely to retire with fewer savings. Especially if their marriage ends, they are particularly vulnerable to potentially retiring in poverty.

This is illustrated in my own riding. I heard this summer that at the Samaritan House, which is run by a wonderful group doing very hard work in Nanaimo, 50% of the homeless women at their shelter are now over the age of 50. These homeless shelters are designed around bunk beds. The women cannot climb into them.

In my own family, my sister Claire had to leave Toronto because, for her and her husband, child care was more expensive than their rent. We have heard these stories again and again.

I ask again to the government: what is it going to do with its legislative power in the House to remove those barriers to women's economic prosperity? If you are really a feminist government, please walk the talk.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that the questions are to be addressed to the Chair and not directly to the government.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question. My colleague claims that our government is not keeping its word and does not support Canadian families. With all due respect to my colleague, she is wrong. Since we came into power, we have taken steps to make all programs more flexible and inclusive, including the employment insurance regime. I would like to say a few words about the improvements we have made to employment insurance.

Budget 2017 proposed to amend the Employment Insurance Act to make EI parental benefits more flexible. Parents will now be able to choose between two options. They can either receive EI parental benefits over a period of up to 12 months at the existing benefit rate, which is equivalent to 55% of their average weekly earnings, or they can receive those benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months at a lower benefit rate, which would be 33% of their average weekly earnings.

However, parents are free to continue sharing these benefits. In addition, pregnant women can claim maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date. This is expanded from the current standard of eight weeks.

Budget 2017 provides for more inclusive benefits for family caregivers. In fact, a new employment insurance benefit will be offered to eligible Canadians for a maximum of 15 weeks so that they can provide care and support to an adult family member who is seriously ill. This is an add-on to the existing compassionate care benefit that is offered to people who are caring for a family member who is critically ill and whose life is at risk.

The most important thing to mention in this debate is that Canadians themselves inspired these improvements. Last year, our government held consultations with Canadians and we organized roundtables with stakeholders. We found out their opinions on how to offer more flexible EI maternity and parental benefits under the Canada Labour Code, as well as how to make benefits and leave more inclusive for family caregivers. We listened to what Canadians had to say and we did what they asked us to. That is the way we do things. We made people our priority.

It is also important to point out that the Canada child benefit, which has been in place for the past year, is the most important program of its generation. Thanks to this measure, nine out of ten Canadian families are now receiving better financial assistance. There is no doubt that, in addition to supporting Canadian families, we are also building a stronger middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, I suggest that the extended parental leave provisions would have had more of an impact on Canadian families, and Canadian women in particular, if the Liberals had added more money into the fund. In this case, people are now allowed to have parental leave living on just one-third of their salary. It really only benefits the wealthiest Canadians.

I also draw the minister's attention to a lot of the testimony we had from a huge range of witnesses at the status of women committee, that reiterated again and again that the EI system, because it is based on the number of hours worked, is discriminatory to women who work on a shorter-term basis. Again, we call on the government to implement a true feminist agenda by legislating pay equity; by making affordable child care universal so that when people get the child tax benefit they have somewhere to spend it; and to introduce the promised legislation to allow domestic violence leave for women in the workforce. We need to legislate to show that we care.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are keeping our promises to help all Canadian families. In budget 2017, we announced a suite of measures to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.

For example, budget 2017 would make maternity and parental employment insurance benefits more flexible and family caregiver benefits more inclusive. We know that expanding employment insurance benefits alone is not enough to improve the lives of Canadians. That is why we are also investing in social infrastructure and putting more money into the pockets of Canadian families through the Canada child benefit.

We are improving the lives of all Canadian families.

Public Safety

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise again in the House to talk about the sale of Norsat, a Canadian-owned company, to Hytera, a Chinese company. This sale has created not only many concerns related to foreign control and ownership but also sensitivities on national security and with Canadian investments, those being tax credits and other types of investments to grow Canadian technological industries. It is important to note that these subsidies should be bearing fruit as jobs and innovation in Canada. For that to be plucked by a Chinese firm is an issue in itself, but more importantly, two former directors of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Richard Fadden and Ward Elcock, have said that the transactions should have been subjected to a full-scale security review, which the government did not do. It is very disconcerting.

It is important to note what this Canadian company does. Norsat provides communications solutions and provision of services for government organizations, military, transportation, resources, marine industry companies, news organizations, public safety, search and rescue operators, and others. Basically, it has two main segments, Sinclair Technologies and satellite communications. This is important, because it was purchased by Hytera, a Chinese state company, which now has control over these advancements and technologies.

The U.S. has expressed concern with regard to this takeover. I would add that what has happened in the meantime is that we can only see the challenges faced by the use of this technology and these services, and then there is the lack of leverage we now have with regard to issues of international developments. It is quite obvious that the United States is concerned with regard to China's relationship with North Korea. We have those concerns as well, and we do know now that Canadian technology has again gone to a state-owned enterprise, with the Chinese government having connections with its companies. Being a Communist nation, it certainly has control over some of the industrial development there.

It is important to note that this subject has been raised before. Interestingly enough, I raised these concerns and worked hard for a number of years to get a security review of these kinds of transactions through a national security lens. The government failed to do so in this case, although it had been suggested by many people within the industry itself and experts in the field. This issue was opened up when we launched a campaign in the past when Chinese investors and other non-democratic governments were purchasing Canadian companies.

The sale of Norsat to Hytera was interesting in the sense that while it was going on, the Conservatives rejected it, but the Liberals opened the doors for it. Also, with Motorola in the United States, there were hearings about a number of different patent infringements that took place.

Therefore, my question to the government is this: why would we want to allow Canadian companies to basically be usurped in this way without full security reviews?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his work with the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, where we work well together. I am pleased to respond to the member for Windsor West's remarks about how the Investment Canada Act and national security intersect.

I would like to begin by emphasizing that foreign direct investment plays a major positive role in the Canadian economy by contributing to research development, boosting productivity, and creating better-paying jobs for Canadians. Foreign direct investment and trade go hand in hand and link Canada into global value chains. Canada is and must continue to be open to foreign investment that helps create long-term jobs for Canadians.

However, we will not jeopardize national security for any investment. The Investment Canada Act plays an important role in protecting Canadians from threats to national security. The act allows the government to examine investments made in Canada by foreign investors to limit the potential harm to national security.

This government's practice is clear and coherent. Last year, we published guidelines to ensure transparency in how we enforce the act. All foreign investments, regardless of value and investor, are subject to review in order to identify any possible concerns related to national security. This rigorous review involves several steps and is conducted by, and in consultation with, the government's national security agencies, including Public Safety Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, as well as the Communications Security Establishment of Canada.

I can assure all Canadians that this government is taking its mandate very seriously, which is to protect national security. The hon. member for Windsor West raised the issue of a recent review of national security that received media coverage. The act limits the level of detail that can be disclosed on specific issues, and these limits are important to prevent causing commercial harm to Canadian companies and unduly compromising national security.

However, I can address this generally. Let's make something clear: this government has not cancelled a previous cabinet order. After more than a year of pending litigation challenging the legality of the previous order which, had it been overturned by the court, would have left no measures in place to protect national security, this government has consented to a court order allowing it to conduct another review in accordance with the act. The new review was conducted in collaboration with security agencies…

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is battling a cold, so I appreciate him spending time here this evening for this debate, which is very important.

I would like to highlight a couple of important points. It seems odd, in a country like ours, that we are concerned about the court system looking at national security protection for Canadians and jobs against a non-democratic government. It is important that we look through that lens. The concerns I raised were part of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which raised this in Washington. As well, at the time, security officials recommended against the takeover, saying the technology transfer would give China access to advanced military laser technology and would diminish Canadian allied military advantages.

My concern is that once it is out the door with China, its relationship with other countries like North Korea is something we cannot control. That technology should be under control.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I already mentioned, because of the confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act, I cannot comment in detail on specific cases. However, Canadians can rest assured that, under the act, foreign investments are subject to a rigorous national security due diligence process. The multi-step process for national security reviews is clearly set out in the law, and the government follows the law in all cases. This government welcomes foreign investment for the benefits it brings to the Canadian economy, including the opportunities it provides for Canadian businesses to compete in world markets.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)