Debates of Nov. 6th, 2023

Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives put forth several amendments, two of which were rejected. One would have required the minister to conduct a national review by changing “may” to “shall” to ensure a review is triggered whenever the review threshold is met. The other would have made the act retroactive.

How does the minister expect the government to ensure our national security is in place if we cannot go back to see which companies got in under the wire and may be doing Canadian companies harm?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer that question.

The hon. member would know that what we are doing with this bill is giving more tools. That was the discussion at committee, I would say respectfully. Let us look at that. There were 11 meetings at INDU and over 20 hours at committee. Not one but 11 significant amendments were voted on by everyone. Everyone agreed that this bill needed significant amendments and everyone voted for them.

What we are debating today is not the essence of the bill. Everyone is looking at this and we all agree, so we are just saying let us vote on it. That is what the record of the committee says. This is about national security. We are not talking about any kind of thing. We know that economic security is national security.

I have enormous respect for our colleague, who is asking a good question, but that debate happened in committee and members voted for it. Now we have a bill that is ready to be voted on at report stage and then at third reading. I know that, because our colleagues voted for it at committee, in their heart they want to vote for it. Let us not allow politics to block national security, because that is too important for Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am entering this debate because I have seen the Conservatives over and over again think of different tactics to delay progress on virtually anything in this House. They will bring forward successive concurrence debates to delay progress of other matters in this House, even though those debates are being actively dealt with at committee. Therefore, here we are.

What I am hearing from the minister is that on this issue, the very questions the Conservatives are raising have been discussed extensively at committee, yet they are still in this House trying to block passage of the bill. Under what circumstance is it justifiable for all of us as parliamentarians to be in this House to obstruct the work that needs to be done on behalf of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. The obstruction tactics that we see from the Conservatives are hurting Canadians. I like the way the colleague put it. There have been two concurrence motions for when we brought this bill forward. For folks at home who are at watching and wondering what a concurrence motion is, it is a delay tactic, which is what is happening.

There were over 20 hours of debate in the House, 11 meetings at the INDU committee, with over 20 hours debate at the committee, and 44 witnesses. On the basis of that, everyone agreed, and we all voted for the amendments. Everyone agreed. We are at a time when Canadians are scratching their heads, and I understand my colleague because I am scratching my head too, thinking that, if everyone agrees, why do we not do the right thing.

We asked the opposition to stop obstructing when it comes to national security. I have heard colleagues ask, “Why do you not act at the speed of business?” I will turn the question around: Why do my colleagues not act at the speed of the business? People are watching. Businesses are asking, “What? You don't want to vote on something you agree upon? What kind of democracy is that?”

In a democracy, we need to debate, but there is a point when we need to act, and the time to act is right now.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the minister to convince the public of the need for his gag order. We are debating a closure motion, but we are wondering why we are even doing that. The Liberals are only imposing closure because they already know that someone is going to vote in favour of it, and that is likely the NPD, which is part of their coalition.

My question will instead focus on the bill. I think that there is a missed opportunity in Bill C-34, and since I have the floor, I want to speak to that problem. The minister is here, so why not?

Bill C-34 modernizes the entire issue of national security to tighten the rules in that area. That is not a bad thing in the current geopolitical context. However, the government left out a major component that it would have been only natural to include in this bill. We have often raised, in the House and in public debate, the issue of modernizing the Investment Canada Act, particularly the economic interest component of it.

When a major investment is made in a business here or in a new business, or when a foreign entity purchases an existing business, how is it that the review threshold is as high as $1.7 billion? When this government took office, there was a review threshold of $300 million. That means that, now, with the exception of cases where there is a threat to national security, the government does not even take an interest in files until the review threshold reaches $1.7 billion, as opposed to $300 million.

Does the minister not think that is rather high?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I have a lot of respect for him. I find we do a lot of work together.

The current debate is to decide whether we proceed to a vote. My Bloc Québécois colleagues had the opportunity to debate the bill. We heard from 44 witnesses for a bill on which everyone agrees. People are watching us. They see that we debated the bill for 20 hours in committee, and that everyone was in agreement. We are looking at each other, and we all agree. All we are asking today is to move forward to a vote, since we are all in agreement.

As my colleague said, this is a critical time in the world. We want to have more tools in our tool box so we can protect national security. Members agree on that. This not a matter of alliances. This should be a unanimous vote, and my colleagues should co-operate and agree to vote, since they are in agreement with the bill. This is what we are talking about today.

We want to work at the speed of the industry, and we want to protect it. I believe that our colleagues from Quebec and the Quebeckers who are watching us understand that the minister needs tools. We want to protect the aerospace and semiconductor industries in Quebec, we want to protect our domestic industry. We want to make sure, for example, that any foreign buyouts are subject to a modern regime. The last time the regime was updated was 14 years ago.

I think people watching at home are saying that even the Bloc Québécois members should vote in favour of moving forward. We all debated the bill, and we are in agreement. It is time to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps arguing that we have debated this enough and that all of these amendments were voted on at committee. Getting back to the question that my colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets asked, there is one question that was not voted on at committee, and it is perhaps the most important one. It has to do with ministerial discretion. That was not voted on at committee, which is why we brought it back to the House.

My colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets asked a very direct question, and the minister did not answer it. I think Canadians who are watching these proceedings deserve an answer. Does the minister not think that the country would be better served by all of cabinet undertaking the security review, rather than one minister from a particular region where certain interests are served?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question again. There were 11 meetings at committee to talk about that and 20 hours of debate. This has been debated at committee. People had the chance to debate it, but now that the debate is taking place in the House and everyone agrees, it is time to vote.

Canadians watching at home are saying there were 20 hours of debate in 11 committee meetings and 20 hours of debate in the House. Members had the chance to debate it, and they said that they agree with the amendments. Now they are asking why the government is asking them to vote on it. It is to protect Canadians' national security and make sure we have modern tools in the tool box.

There are real questions, which I know Canadians are asking. What is the hidden agenda of the Conservatives? Why would they want to block legislation? Why are they blocking Bill C-56, which would reform competition? Why are they blocking amendments to the Investment Canada Act?

When it comes to national security, members need to forget their political affiliations and do what is right for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not on the merits of Bill C-34, but on the use of time allocation once again. On principle, I will vote against time allocation always because this is the place where legislation gets debated.

Many members of the House are not members of the industry committee. I am not allowed to be a member of the INDU committee. I have very strong views on Bill C-34 and national security considerations on takeovers of Canadian companies, but will not be allowed to speak to this because, yet again, the guillotine is being brought down. The Harper administration did this time and time again, and the opposition knew it was wrong then. The Liberals promised that they would not, and now it is routine. Time allocation is put on almost every bill.

The hon. minister knows the high opinion I hold of him. I want to be able to discuss this legislation. I was the first MP in the House to identify that the takeover of Aecon by the People's Republic of China should have had a national security review. For a long time, I was the lone voice. We finally got it, and the deal was turned down.

I care about this stuff, and I really think every member of the House has a right to participate in debates. Time allocation defeats that right.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows how much I like her, and her contributions to the House are well known to all members.

We actually want debate. There were 20 hours of debate in the House, 20 hours of debate at committee, and 11 meetings at committee with 44 witnesses. I agree that we need debate, which I believe in, but there is also a time when we need to act.

My colleague from the NDP said it best earlier when she said that the Conservatives consistently, systematically and regularly use delay tactics so the House cannot move bills forward. That is not democracy. In a democracy, we need to debate, we need to think and we need to make sure every voice is heard, but the duty of every member, at one stage, is to vote. We need to vote on bills so they can move forward, go through the Senate and hopefully get royal assent.

As I said, there comes a time in a democracy, and in the House, when we need to move forward, particularly when it comes to national security. I would not know how to explain to Canadians that members are in agreement, but they do not want to vote. It is very difficult mentally to understand that. They would ask, if we agree, why would we not vote. That is why people sent us to the House: to vote. Members should vote, and then we will move on in protecting the national security of Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I know that he runs his department with passion. I will speak briefly of the issue of closure motions in a minority government. As the closure motions keep on coming, we wonder if the government really understood the message it got from voters. They wanted it to reach agreements in the context of a minority government. Imposing one gag order after another is not what I would call taking into account the fact that it is a minority government.

We voted for Bill C-34, but as my colleagues said, there are a few blind spots. In particular, the last update to the Investment Canada Act dates from 1985. I was not very old in 1985. That was some time ago. I would like to hear my colleague comment about how this would have been a great opportunity to update it completely in order to protect our domestic head offices, not just address the issue of national security. We could have extended the scope of the act to include that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's argument, but legislation must move forward even in a minority government. I think that my colleague would agree that, once the debate has taken place and members are in agreement, they call for a vote. Instead, we are seeing the Conservatives move all kinds of motions to prevent us from voting. In a democracy, it is important to vote. Debating is important, but it is also important to vote. We are asking to go to a vote. Action is urgently needed.

I remember appearing before the committee. My Bloc Québécois colleagues are in favour of the bill. My Conservatives colleagues are as well. That is what people at home do not understand. The other parties agree with it. When we had the debate, when we had the opportunity to express our opinion on the bill, 11 major amendments were agreed to by all parties. That proves democracy is working.

In a minority government, we also have to be able to pass legislation, especially on national security. That is important. Everyone agrees that we need tools in our tool box. Everyone is saying we need do the right thing. We are doing that together. We are moving forward in good faith. I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues.

Today, what we are saying is that, at some point, we need to vote. That time has come.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I must say that this minister has given us a master class in how to talk out the clock today.

The NDP-Liberal government has moved time allocation 37 times this Parliament alone. In the period up until Tom Mulcair, the NDP only supported time allocation 17 times, so now the NDP has done it over double the amount of times. What has its members gotten? The NDP say they want pharmacare. They have gotten nothing from the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Therefore, my question is this: Given that the Liberals have given the NDP government nothing, the government of no democratic principles, what are they promising them, since the NDP is getting nothing for truncating debate, which is what we are dealing with today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contributions in the House. I am sure the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo like him. I am sure they are watching the TV today and saying, “Hold on a minute. We are all in favour of debate, but once we agree, can we vote?” That is the question. People have agreed on the amendments. I am sure people watching are thinking that we all agree. They want democracy. They want debate. They want robust debate to make sure. However, once there is agreement, we need to vote at some stage.

In this case people have agreed, and we need—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member to be a good person and an honest person, but he is saying that we have agreed to something that we have not agreed to. I do not think that is appropriate. It has been very clear that we have not agreed, particularly on the amendment to clause 15.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate, I believe, unless we could have some clarification that it actually went against the rules.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a genuine consensus of agreement in the legislation and the principles of the legislation, yet the Conservatives continue to want to prevent the House of Commons from being able to pass legislation with all forms of filibustering. A good example of that is Bill C-56, something that we debated earlier today as part of a private member's bill where members on all sides were talking about the importance of competition. However, Bill C-56 is yet another victim of Conservative filibustering.

I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the filibustering that takes place, which hurts Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will allow me to respond to the point of order that was made. There was agreement by all parties on 11 significant amendments to the bill that we are talking about.

I value the contributions of my Conservative colleagues. I value them. That is why I went to the committee. We took on border amendments. We agreed that the best way to have good legislation in this country is to have work being done at committee, to listen to witnesses and work together. They know me. I am a very open-minded person. We accepted not one but 11 significant amendments to this bill. Everyone agreed that those were the significant amendments we needed to move forward. That was the agreement of the committee.

I think the question of the member is relevant. Once that was all done, after 44 witnesses, 20 hours of work at committee and 20 hours of time used in the House, there comes a time when people at home will say we need to move on and vote. That is exactly what we are asking for today with this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nothing but a bunch of myths from the Liberal minister. He bragged earlier that he had dropped the threshold; he did not. I brought that motion in, and Liberal MPs voted against it. I brought in the amendment to the committee that put bribery and corruption in. Liberal MPs voted against it. The only reason it is through is because the opposition put it in.

The whole point of report stage is to allow for further amendments. The minister has ignored for a half hour the call to say yes or no to whether he thinks cabinet should be eliminated from the process of reviewing foreign investments. His bill would remove cabinet from that process and put it solely in the minister's hands.

Why, for a half hour, has he decided not to answer the question? Will Liberals support our amendment at report stage to return cabinet decision-making to the Investment Canada Act, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows how much I like him and, I will say in front of everyone in this House, his contributions. I may have had half an hour, but he had 20 hours of work at the committee to put forward his amendment. During these 20 hours, not one but 11 significant amendments were adopted by everyone. This was the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives. They had 20 hours in committee to do that, and they came and said they agreed this was the best way forward for this bill.

I welcome his contribution. I thank him for what he does in making sure he improves legislation. However, after 20 hours, someone at home would think that they must have done the work they needed to do. What we are saying today is we need to vote. That is what the motion is about today.

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

Mr. Speaker, he still has not answered the question. Yes or no, will he vote to return cabinet decision-making to the Investment Canada process? Why does he think he is so important he is allowed to ignore his colleagues in that role in making those decisions?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes or no, will my colleague vote for the motion? That is the real question, because they had 20 hours of debate. The good people in his riding are wondering. If he agrees, how will he vote? Like I said, there is a time for debate and there is time for action. The time for action has come now. This is about national security. This in the interest of Canadians. I want every member of this House to support the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would humbly like a recorded division.