Debates of April 27th, 2021

Port of Montreal Operations Act, 2021

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of operations at the Port of Montreal.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Justice and Human Rights

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships”.

International Trade

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, “Main Estimates 2021-2022: Vote 1 under Invest in Canada Hub”.

In accordance with this order of reference of Thursday, February 25, the committee has considered vote 1 under Invest in Canada Hub in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, and reports the same.

Canadian Heritage

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to the motion adopted on Friday, October 23, 2020, regarding the challenges and issues faced by the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

moved that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, presented to the House on Friday, March 26, 2021, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, or, as I like to call him, the “Earl of Red Deer”. He deserves all of the credit for his work on this particular bill. He is the longest-serving Conservative member on the industry committee. I would like to thank him for his incredible and tireless work at that committee and for his contributions to this important study and the report that we are debating on that study today.

Today we are addressing “The Investment Canada Act: Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and facilitating Canada's Recovery”. With the economic calamity brought on by the government's mismanagement of the COVID crisis and with its mismanagement of spending regulations and taxes, the Investment Canada Act came to the forefront of debate one year ago and still resonates, as this piece of legislation gives the federal government the power to review foreign investments in Canada under two broad criteria: national security and the net benefit review.

Foreign direct investment reviews are critical in areas that are sensitive to national security, but they can be absolutely necessary, as it is important to protect industries that are linked to the security of the nation. With the growing phenomenon of rare earth and other minerals and resources that not only furnish us with our quality of life, but protect our security and our sovereignty, it is important to ensure we do not surrender these resources to hostile foreign powers. They include “natural resources, food and medical supply lines, infrastructure (telecommunications and transportation), media and culture, the health sector, the hotel industry (given the need to protect personal information), as well as some emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information processing, and semiconductors.”

It is clear these sectors should have the ability to operate in a way that allows for competition and customer choice, however it is equally important that they not become the successful target of hostile foreign powers that seek to acquire them not for any market-driven purpose, but rather to threaten the security and sovereignty of our nation. That is why this report is so important.

To that end, I will cede the rest of my time to the real expert on this subject, the member who has done more work than anyone on it, and that is the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I must say I am a little disappointed in the Conservatives, but not surprised. Yet again they are moving a motion to prevent the government from being able to debate the very important issues before the House. I can understand there are certain aspects the opposition does not want to debate, for example, the legislation on net zero, which was one of the scheduled pieces of legislation for some discussion. After all, their position seems to be flip-flopping on the price of pollution. Today, I think, they are in favour of it.

Does the member recognize the importance of allowing the government to be able to deal with absolutely critical legislation at this time of year? Why do the Conservatives continue to want to frustrate the government's legislative agenda, when they themselves will ask why the government is not passing enough legislation?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me start by pointing out the obvious fact that everyone in the House recognizes: no one wastes more time in Parliament than that member. No one is, in fact, more capable of compressing so many words into so little substance as him. Indeed, I have had constituents say that they wish they could hit a fast-forward button when he stands up in the House. Perhaps the legislative agenda of the government would move more quickly if he would say a little bit less and do a little bit more.

I am also very sorry that the member does not want to discuss the protection of the sovereignty of our industries that are crucial to our national security. Maybe he just wants to sell all of our critical strategic industries to Communist China, which his leader admires for its basic dictatorship. We Conservatives actually think that Parliament should be discussing how we protect our strategic industries against hostile foreign takeover.

Finally, if the member is so concerned about moving Parliament along he should talk to his Prime Minister about why he shut the place down for two months straight.

That is how I would respond to his never-ending complaining about the opposition's use of Parliament to debate critical issues that affect the lives of Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, speaking of Liberal filibusters, we have finally gotten the documents from Victor Li, although his lawyer said that it was WE Charity, or maybe the Kielburger brothers, who answered the committee's questions.

I am very concerned. Basic questions were asked. In his role as CFO, what financial information was requested by the Government of Canada in its decision to order the CSSG? His answer, “I do not know.” What assurance did WE give the government that it could handle the financial load? “I do not know.” That was their CFO. Mr. Li's signature is on the service contract. Why was the contract retroactive to May 5? He does not know. What assurances was he given on May 5 onward that expenses would be covered? He does not know.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about this. This is $500 million-plus that we were going to give to the Kielburger brothers. They just walked in, signed this deal, and yet their CFO cannot answer basic questions about due diligence.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked some very good questions. He is absolutely right.

The Prime Minister personally intervened to award a half-billion-dollar contribution to a group that had paid his family a half-million dollars, yet Mr. Li, supposedly the chief financial officer of the WE Charity, does not have the most basic information about this half-billion-dollar grant that he would have presumably been administering as the CFO. This particular individual has gone missing for roughly a year now.

When I originally asked for him to testify at the finance committee on the WE scandal, he wrote back saying he was too sick, so apparently he is still too sick to testify. We asked him to answer questions in writing and his answer is that he does not know anything about anything. I guess he is taking a page out of the ministerial playbook where the government has sent ministers to the committee whose top answer to the most important WE scandal questions has been, “I don't know”.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to speak to this motion this morning. I thank the member for Carleton for recognizing the number of years I have been associated with the industry committee, and I am honoured to present some of the findings in this particular report.

Few things are as important to my constituents and to all Canadians as how the government supports workers, families and businesses in these unprecedented times, and few things are as important as ensuring a strong and prosperous recovery.

Canada's Conservatives have worked tirelessly over the last year to address and fix many of the shortcomings of the ill-designed and flawed assistance programs introduced by the Liberal government. We stood up for Canadian workers who tragically lost their jobs due to the Liberal government's slow and inadequate response to the pandemic. We stood up for businesses that have struggled to stay afloat during the pandemic and will continue to do so over the coming months.

This is part of what the report from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is all about. The report's recommendations will help to ensure that Canadian businesses remain drivers of economic growth for all Canadian workers. They will help to ensure that our most important intellectual assets stay in Canadian hands.

Over the last year, many countries around the world have taken concrete measures to prevent the predatory acquisition of businesses within their borders by actors connected with authoritarian regimes or by state-owned enterprises. The countries that have acted are pro-investment countries, such as Australia, India, Germany and those of the European Union. They recognize that times of great economic difficulties for businesses leaves them vulnerable to predatory takeovers or acquisitions, which can jeopardize ownership of intellectual property and put jobs at risk. Canadian businesses are equally vulnerable, which is what the standing committee heard in testimony from many expert witnesses, but like everything else, the response from the Liberal government has been totally inadequate.

Shortly before the standing committee began its study, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service highlighted the risks posed by foreign takeovers in today's environment in a report. An article explains:

Specifically, CSIS warned that Canada's “economic wealth, open business and scientific environments, and advanced workforce and infrastructure” posed an enticing target to foreign investors.

The agency said that while most foreign investors are not hostile, those [investments] from state-owned enterprises and firms with close ties to governments or intelligence services need to be weighed very carefully.

The Liberal government's response to these very real concerns was to introduce a weak-kneed, vague policy statement last April that suggests the minister could request additional information or extend the timelines for the review of acquisitions under the Investment Canada Act's national security provisions. Last month, and in response to the standing committee's report, the Liberal government issued equally weak updated guidelines on the national security review of investments, which suggest, for example, that investments by state-owned or state-influenced investors will be subject to enhanced scrutiny regardless of the investment value.

As hon. members know, there currently is no investment value threshold for the review of acquisitions under the ICA's national security review provisions. Such reviews are conducted entirely at the discretion of the minister and with no requirements for consultations with security experts such as CSIS. Rather than strengthening the Investment Canada Act itself, the Liberal government's response to protecting Canadian interests in the current pandemic has been to engage in more smoke-and-mirrors excuses that accomplish nothing.

Over the course of its study on strengthening the ICA, the standing committee heard testimony from several expert witnesses about the need to act decisively. For example, the committee heard testimony from Dr. Christopher Balding of Fulbright University in Vietnam. He said that Chinese state-owned enterprises in particular target assets, whether in natural resources or technology, that are prioritized by political leaders rather than by market forces. How did the Liberal government respond? It responded by issuing vague and meaningless guidelines and policy directives.

During testimony at committee, Dr. Charles Burton from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute stated that Canada should consider a complete moratorium on all investments from authoritarian regime state-owned enterprises pending the establishment of clearer criteria for these types of investments. Dr. Burton also noted that we need more awareness of where Canadian interests lie and more clarity on the idea of net benefit under the Investment Canada Act.

Dr. Burton also said, “I'd like to see a more open and transparent process that would give us more awareness of the basis for government decision-making.... The Canadian people should be more aware of what's going on and how our government is responding to it.” How did the Liberal government respond? It responded by issuing weak closed-door guidelines and policy directives without any consultation at all.

During its review, the standing committee also heard testimony from Jim Balsillie, chair of the Council of Canadian Innovators. Mr. Balsillie noted that the Investment Canada Act is a critical regulatory tool for ensuring Canada's prosperity and security, but he also noted that it does not reflect the contemporary economy, where the most valuable national, economic and security assets are intellectual property and data. He suggests that Canada needs to go beyond reviewing acquisitions by SOEs of authoritarian countries because, if the assets are critical to Canada's prosperity, security and sovereignty, then we need to ensure they remain in our control, regardless of the foreign counterparty. How did the government respond? Quite simply, it did not.

The recommendations in the standing committee report are balanced, appropriate and timely. They are based on the testimony we heard from experts about the need to protect our interests while also continuing to attract foreign investment to Canada. In line with the testimony we heard, the standing committee report recommends reducing the threshold under the ICA's net benefit test to zero dollars from the current level of $428 million if the acquiring entity is a state-owned enterprise and that all thresholds be reviewed on an annual basis. It recommends that the government should take steps to improve the treatment of intangible assets under the net benefit review process of the ICA, and it also recommends that the government should implement legal measures necessary to block any transaction that would undermine Canada's national security by transferring a sensitive asset to a non-Canadian entity.

The report recommends that the Government of Canada take steps to protect our strategic economic sectors, such as natural resources, agri-food and the pharmaceutical industry. The committee also recommends that the Government of Canada immediately introduce legislation amending the Investment Canada Act to compel the minister to consult with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Communications Security Establishment in the national security process. Strangely enough, there is currently no provision or firm requirements within the act to do that, leaving everything up to the political discretion of the minister, and we all know the government's track record on that front.

There is no question that foreign investment helps drive economic growth and creates jobs. Interestingly enough, while pro-investment countries such as Ireland saw foreign investment double between 2015 and 2019, foreign investment actually shrunk by half a percentage point over the same period under the Liberal government in Canada. Conservatives have always understood the benefits of foreign investment and have taken steps to promote more. That does not mean that we should abandon any notion of protecting Canadian interests, as the Liberal government seems so intent on doing. It means that we need to remain open, but also vigilant.

I therefore urge all hon. members to support the motion before us today so that we can move forward to strengthen and modernize the Investment Canada Act to reflect both our present realities, as well as the 21st century economy.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I come from an area of this great country that has two copper mines, which have been funded by foreign direct investment.

We have also seen the Liberal government approve a transfer of senior homes in British Columbia to a Chinese state organization called Anbang, and that was a horrible mistake by the government. When members, such as the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and I, raised it, the government said it is all up to the provincial government. We cannot allow the government to continue to approve such large-scale transactions and effectively say we should let the provinces figure it out.

Does the member have anything further to say about the need to protect both our critical industries and Canadian lives, like those of our seniors?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are two aspects to what the member has asked, and the first is how are companies and businesses in Canada are supposed to be able to compete when they see investment dollars coming into our country from state-owned enterprises? That is really the critical aspect of it.

There are so many businesses that are just kind of get their footing underneath them, and then they start to have this extra competition. That is really a critical aspect of it. We have seen it in the health care system. I know the European Union was extremely concerned about what was happening there. That is why it took action.

The other aspect is that the government is pushing all the difficult decisions on the provincial government. We have talked about how the pandemic, vaccines and all the issues have been downloaded to provincial governments. I think it is something we need to be cautious and aware of.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and I really appreciate the work that he does.

My colleague mentioned in his speech that it is particularly important to reduce the threshold for triggering a review to zero dollars. Could he tell us more about this recommendation?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the good work he does on committee.

One of the key considerations is to look at what is actually happening, and not having some arbitrary number that triggers the review. When we are talking about national security, this is one of the main parts. Quite frankly, although the Liberals suggested it does not matter, the testimony we heard indicated that CSIS and national security folks would actually have the right to access and look at all of these acquisition potentials, so that is really an important aspect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could tell the House why the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, has chosen today to raise that issue when it has opposition days? It has had many other opportunities to be able to raise it. Why raise it today, when we have other legislation we want to debate? Why does the Conservative Party continue to want to frustrate the government's House business?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, usually when anybody gets up to speak, the member has a question of process. I go back to what the member for Carleton indicated, which is that the current government does not seem overly serious about passing any particular government legislation. It spent two months hiding from Canadians this summer under prorogation. We continue to see its members adding more and more types of legislation that really do not advance the betterment of this country, as we are trying so hard right now to look at the economy and make sure Canadians are going to do better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it truly is amazing when we stop and think about it. In the last number of months, we have seen the official opposition, the Conservative Party, continue to behave in an irresponsible manner and play a very destructive role in the House of Commons. Even in the question that I just finished posing to the member, he tried to give the impression that the government is not passing legislation.

The Government of Canada has been very much focused on Canadians and the pandemic, and bringing forward legislation that is going to have the backs of Canadians in terms of supporting them, whether it is legislation like Bill C-14 or the budget we just voted on yesterday. That has been the priority for Canadians.

There are other important issues that the Government of Canada has been trying to get through the House of Commons. For example, today we have legislation on net-zero emissions. That is something that is important to our environment. I realize that the Conservative Party, as a group, has said that the environment is not an issue. However, recently we had the Conservative leader saying that the price on pollution is a positive thing.

Conservatives do not want to debate the important issues that need to be debated and that Canadians want to see leadership on. The Government of Canada is prepared to provide that leadership. The official opposition, I believe, will be found in need and lacking in its performance.

The issue within the report today is important. There is no doubt about that. There are lots of reports out there that are important, but it is time that we see the official opposition recognize what Canadians want us to recognize, which is the important issues of the day that the House of Commons needs to deal with, and stop playing the destructive force it has been playing for the last number of months. I believe there is a need for us to get back to an agenda that deals with the issues for Canadians.

Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #97

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition this morning from residents throughout Saanich—Gulf Islands and beyond the constituency, recognizing the climate crisis, recognizing an urgent ecological crisis in species extinction, and calling on the government to bring into place federal legislation to ensure that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment.

Farmers' Protests in India

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting petition No. 11208878 today on behalf of constituents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. The petitioners are calling on the government to take a number of actions due to farmers in India peacefully protesting the implementation of farming legislation by the Parliament of India, as Canada has always stood for the protection of fundamental freedoms at home and around the world.

Human Rights

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I am presenting a petition calling on the Government of Canada to deploy all legal sanctions, including the freezing of assets, and barring of entry to Canada, against foreign officials who are responsible for gross human rights violations in China under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Magnitsky act.

For years, Chinese officials have orchestrated killings, torture and forced organ harvesting for the purposes of trade and transplantation. The victims of this abhorrent practice include political prisoners, Uighurs, Tibetans and religious minorities such as Falun Gong practitioners.

The persecution of ethnic and religious minorities in China needs to stop and the leaders responsible must be sanctioned.