Debates of May 10th, 2018

Elections Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, we all encourage young people to vote. I am always honoured in my campaign to have enthusiastic young people out there. A lot of the time, those who cannot even vote yet are coming out to help me on my campaigns. In my riding association I have a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old who are super-eager and excited. We are all going to encourage young people to vote.

However, let us go back to the point that I raised in my speech about identification. The Liberals keep going back to the point that young people and students do not have identification, but as we have clearly shown, nearly 50 types of eligible identification are permissible for those students, including student ID cards or a letter from a college or university or an institution such as that.

We need to encourage young people to vote, and we as a party and we as parliamentarians will be doing all we can as candidates in the next election to encourage young people to vote. I would encourage the Liberals to do the same, rather than trying to introduce a 350-page omnibus elections bill that the Chief Electoral Officer clearly showed should have been introduced and passed by last month, yet here we are only just beginning debate today.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to this debate because we have been waiting so long for it.

We had clear indications from Elections Canada that they needed new legislation to have passed both the House of Commons and the Senate and to have received royal recommendation to be law. Elections Canada warned the government more than a year ago that this was required.

I am not sure that my friend's efforts to amend the bill in the way that he has is really going to help us along the path. Someone once said that a lack of effort on their part does not create a crisis on our part. I asked the Treasury Board secretary earlier if he would commit to not fast-tracking the bill, thus shutting down debate, because it is very large, at 350 pages, and incredibly complex. It also deals with constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and access to the Canadian electoral system.

My basic question is this, though. If the Conservatives are only going to offer to try to derail the bill, I am not sure that it sets us up well for the 2019 election. This bill was introduced by the Liberal government on the very day that Elections Canada had told them that they needed the legislation passed. Canadians can be rightly quite cynical and skeptical as to whether the Liberals are truly committed to fulfilling their promises to the changes that they ran on in the last campaign.

To my friend, on the specific amendment that he has moved, what is the effort and what eventual goal do the Conservatives have in advancing the conversation around our democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley on one particular point, which is that the Liberals cannot be trusted to implement what they ran on. They ran on one policy and then in the end failed to deliver on so many of the policies that they introduced.

The purpose of the amendment was clear. This is a flawed piece of legislation and we do not believe that we should proceed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

When debate continues, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington will have approximately five minutes coming back to him for further questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Department of Health Act (drinking water guidelines), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Department of Health Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I believe the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 23, 2018, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign Investment

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in the House to bring up an issue that is drawing a lot of attention in my riding. I now have many constituents asking me about the Aecon deal.

I see the parliamentary secretary is ready to answer my question. Hopefully, I will get an answer because I know that the deal is supposed to be either confirmed or rejected by the government by the end of May. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to illuminate the House on some of the considerations that will go into the decision, or whether he can inform us on whether the government will do the right thing, which would be to reject the Aecon takeover by a China-controlled state-owned company.

We know that experts in the national security field have called into question this entire deal, from top to bottom. One of them said:

It seems to me very difficult for the government to approve the Aecon acquisition without incurring significant risks to national security going forward...It would certainly not be my recommendation to allow it to proceed.

This is a former CSIS director, saying that proceeding with the Aecon deal would not be in the national security interests of Canada. I would tend to agree with him.

In the House, I brought up the China state-owned company's record in Bangladesh, where it was barred from bidding on contracts because the Bangladeshi government deemed it too corrupt to do business with. I brought up the point that it had been banned by the World Bank for an extended period of time for bidding on international projects. I brought up the fact that the same China-controlled state-owned company purchased the John Holland Group in Australia. In Australia, that same John Holland Group is now implicated in a fiasco involving the construction of a children's hospital, with an asbestos-laden roof, lead in the water, and construction defects, amounting to an over $300 million difference between the cost of the project and what is outstanding.

All of these examples point to the fact that the Government of Canada should not proceed with the approval of this takeover of Aecon.

There are also a lot of other issues. The promoters of the project have said that this will inject new capital. That is simply not true. Large-scale construction companies like Aecon, or Graham Construction or PCL do not build public infrastructure just because they can. They typically build it on behalf of governments, such as a school, hospital, or a dam project, with money from that government. These companies are just transitory. It is a transition of cash between the two. There is no injection of new money.

The real concern that national security experts in this field have is that every single one of these large-scale public projects have things like warranties. Companies like Aecon have access to maintenance logs, the entire warranty infrastructure of the particular building or project, so they know how the buildings are maintained, what goes into the buildings, what type of material has been used.

Again, the question I have for the parliamentary secretary is this. Could he tell the House whether the Government of Canada will be taking into consideration every single example I have just mentioned before proceeding with this takeover of Aecon by a China state-owned corporation, and handing over control of one of the largest, most successful Canadian-based construction companies to the Chinese Communist Party?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Calgary Shepard concerning foreign investment in Canada.

First, I would like to point out that foreign investment plays an important role in Canada's economic development. Our government looks favourably on foreign investment when there is a net benefit to Canada. At the same time, our government takes seriously its responsibility to protect Canadians against threats to national security.

The Investment Canada Act is an integral part of the framework that supports these two objectives. Under the provisions of the act, the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development examines and approves significant foreign investments before they are made. Only when the minister is satisfied that a foreign investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada will it be approved.

Furthermore, the strong national security provisions of the act state that any foreign investment, no matter the size or origin, requires a national security review to guarantee that the investments are not injurious to Canada's national security.

The national security review process begins as soon as the minister is informed of an investment. Investors must supply a large amount of detailed information about themselves, including their business activities, their principals, and the possibility of foreign state influence.

In accordance with the act, Canadian security organizations thoroughly analyze all the information provided by the investor, as well as additional evidence and information. These organizations are the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, and the Department of National Defence.

The hon. member referred to a contract in Australia for the construction of a children's hospital. I cannot speak to the execution of that contract, but I can confirm that the proposed acquisition of the Canadian company Aecon is under review pursuant to the national security provisions of the Investment Canada Act.

As indicated in the guidelines on the national security review of investments, which our government published in December 2016, Canadian security agencies carefully evaluate many factors during a national security review, including potential risks to Canada's defence capabilities and interests, the transfer of sensitive technology, and the security of Canada's critical infrastructure, as well as any impact on Canada's international interests, or potential links to terrorism or organized crime.

The legislation provides a strong, evidence-based regulatory framework for reviewing foreign investments in order to determine the net benefit to Canada and the potential risks to national security, and we are following that process. Foreign investments are made in Canada only after careful review of the evidence and consideration of the professional advice from our security agencies.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, none of what the parliamentary secretary said makes me feel better about the deal, unfortunately. I know it will come as a great surprise to him that I do not quite agree with it.

We learned earlier today about the 18-year prison term the former CEO of Anbang is now facing. There is a Yiddish proverb, “Never mind the remorse, don’t commit the sin.” If the Liberals do not commit the sin, there will be no reason for them to feel remorse a year from now if they approve the Aecon deal to then say that, in retrospect, they regret going through with it. That is exactly the type of regret the Australian government is feeling with the John Holland group takeover by the exact same state-owned company.

We know from The Globe and Mail articles that have been written on this deal that officials within that department of the Government of Canada have said that this company would not be able to build the Gordie Howe International Bridge, and now Aecon has announced that it will be removing its intention to bid on the project. I ask the parliamentary secretary what other projects it will be removed from. Will it be dams, nuclear power plants, hospitals—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the supplementary question.

I can assure all Canadians that the decisions made under the act are based on extensive, detailed analyses. The government is following the process set out in the act and is making evidence-based decisions. We will not compromise Canada's national security for any foreign investment whatsoever. I can confirm that the proposed Aecon takeover is currently undergoing a national security review. However, the confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act prevent me from sharing any details about it.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, “It's like putting a serial rapist in charge of a women's shelter”. That is how one newspaper described the fact that Syria will chair a UN Conference on Disarmament later this year.

The Syrian regime, with the backing of Iran and Russia, is one of the world's leading violators of human rights in general and a violator in terms of the use of illegal weapons to violate human rights in particular. What is striking about this situation of the Syrian regime chairing this UN conference is that the UN's own investigations clearly show the illegal targeting of civilians with illegal chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. The fact that these attacks on civilians with chemical weapons have happened at all is a grave challenge to the credibility of the international system, so I am glad that there was a punitive response taken by our allies. The UN's investigative bodies have identified this and pointed the finger at Syria, yet at the same time, the UN is going to welcome Syria to chair the UN Conference on Disarmament, which operates under and reports to the UN General Assembly. The conference will meet starting May 28.

This is a pattern we see in different UN entities. Some of the worst violators of human rights in general, and in particular cases, will seek positions of influence involving human rights at the UN, the particular area where they are violating those rights, in hopes of preventing, or at least dampening, criticism of their own activities. We saw this, for example, with the Saudi government getting a position on the UN women's rights commission. We should acknowledge that there have been some changes made in Saudi Arabia, but there is a heck of a lot more work to do when it comes to women's rights and other human rights issues.

At the time, I asked our Minister of Foreign Affairs what I think was a fairly simple question. Did she think it was a good thing or a bad thing that Saudi Arabia was on the UN women's rights commission? I asked the question multiple times. Her response was to explain some of the context around this election but not to actually answer the specific question.

I know that all members of this House believe that the UN plays an important role in the world, but I want to say to the government that appropriate criticism of that pattern of behaviour, of the way some authoritarian regimes use UN human rights bodies to try to whitewash their own abuses, is the pro-UN thing to do. If one cares about the UN, if one cares about the integrity of international institutions, it is necessary to speak out and criticize and act when we have these kinds of negative outcomes. It is with an eye to reforming and improving the UN to make it better that we should clearly identify when these perverse outcomes happen. Being pro-UN does not mean accepting these kinds of clearly unacceptable aspects of current processes as having to be in place going forward.

I want to ask the government this question again, because I do not think we got a clear answer originally. We heard comments about the situation in Syria in general.

The government had notice of this question, so it knows it is coming. Will it be boycotting this conference, given that Canada in the past has boycotted this conference when it has been chaired by rogue states? Will Canada do the right thing on May 28, and going forward, and boycott a disarmament conference chaired by Syria?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank my hon. colleague for his passion and advocacy for human rights.

Our government is dismayed and appalled that Syria will take on the presidency of the conference on disarmament. We believe that it is inappropriate for Syria to take this presidency. Almost three weeks ago, when the ministers of foreign affairs of the G7 met in Toronto, a conversation on this matter was initiated by our Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will quote the communiqué that came out of the G7 conference. It states, “We deplore the fact that Syria will assume the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament in May, given its consistent and flagrant disregard of international non-proliferation and disarmament norms and agreements.”

We will continue to publicly denounce this development. We have been calling on the conference to change its rules of procedure to prevent countries which violate their disarmament obligations from holding the rotating presidency. We also call on countries to voluntarily recuse themselves when they know that they have not been upholding their international obligations.

I want to assure the hon. member that our government is seized of this issue and we have been publicly and diplomatically raising it with our allies, like-minded countries, and members of the UN.

I also want to make a distinction. We, of course, know that the UN can work better and we want to see the UN improve and reform itself, but there is a difference between raising cynicism about the institution and constructively contributing to reforming the UN, and that is where I see the difference between me and my colleague.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives raised this issue not to create cynicism but to point to the reality, and people are going to respond to that reality in different ways. My hope is that this leads to constructive action. Sometimes we have to be tough on international institutions, and that includes a willingness to boycott conferences that are clearly too compromised.

With all due respect to my colleague, he said some things that are worthwhile about the G7 communiqué, but he did not answer the specific question, which is this: If Syria remains in the presidency position, if these reforms do not happen as they are fortunately being sought, will Canada be willing to send a clear statement by boycotting that conference?

Asking Syria to voluntarily recuse itself from this discussion is not a realistic approach. Syria wants to be in this discussion precisely because it wants to view criticism of its own record.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to answer this question: Will Canada be willing to boycott the convention if change does not happen?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague of the phrase, “Don't confuse politeness with weakness”. He defines toughness with being vulgar or belligerent. My definition of toughness is being constructive, clear, and sometimes blunt, but in a constructive way.

As to his question about what we will do, he will understand that we will keep our options open. We are not going to reveal our options until the time comes. For now, we have been very clear about calling on Syria not to take the presidency, asking our allies to support that, and asking the conference to reform itself.

Infrastructure

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House in February to ask this government to reassure the provinces and municipalities about its infrastructure plan and the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities recently gave an update on the first phase, but I have to say that I still do not feel reassured.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported in March that half of the infrastructure money set aside for the first phase had not been spent or even allocated. The minister, meanwhile, claims that nearly 80% of the money has been spent. That still leaves 20% unspent, which amounts to $2.6 billion in unused funding.

A recent article in the magazine L'actualité reported the following:

The provinces want Ottawa to give them more flexibility for spending federal funding, especially the ability to replace part of their own contributions with federal money.

In my riding, one project that is vital for the economy and for businesses in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale is the one to build a multi-level rail bridge to replace the current grade crossing on the Trans-Canada Highway. Yes, we have a railroad crossing the Trans-Canada Highway at grade.

The Quebec department of transport, sustainable mobility, and transport electrification confirmed early this year that this is a priority project, but it currently does not fit into any federal grant programs.

Last Monday, I hosted the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in my riding. For me, Saint-Hyacinthe is a must-see, which is why, to kick off its cross-Canada tour, the committee made its first stop at Jefo, a company that has been working in the field of feed additives for 35 years now.

From the very beginning, Jean Fontaine, and now the next generation, have always seized opportunities and developed a vision that benefits the agricultural producers in our region and around the world, since Jefo has operations everywhere there is agriculture.

The visit to the Jefo facility really opened our eyes to the enterprise's importance in the field of animal nutrition. During the visit, Jean Fontaine and Jean-François Fontaine made it very clear that their plans for expanding Jefo are certainly not complete.

I am proud that Saint-Hyacinthe continues to make its mark as an agrifood technopole thanks to one of its businesses, Jefo, which is the only private company in Quebec to offer a capacity of 100 train units, in or out, as we were told by its president, Jean Fontaine.

Another thing that Jean Fontaine and Jean-François Fontaine wanted to talk to us about was how much the development and expansion of Jefo and other businesses in my riding depend on plans to replace the current grade crossing that crosses the Trans-Canada Highway with a multi-level rail bridge.

Not only is this project crucial to the safety of everyone in the region, but it also represents a key asset for the economic development of Saint-Hyacinthe and the surrounding area.

Since I was elected, I have had dozens of meetings with my federal, provincial, and municipal colleagues, as well as representatives from Canadian National, to try to bring this project to fruition. My point here is that it is important to listen to the provinces, which are asking for more flexibility in terms of how federal subsidies can be invested.

Will this government give the provinces and municipalities the flexibility they are asking for to decide which infrastructure projects are important to their communities?