Debates of Nov. 6th, 2023

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

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

Let us try to be respectful and judicious in our comments.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals missed a chance to think big and understand what is going on in the Canadian economy. This bill does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians.

That is why Conservatives worked to pass four significant amendments. For instance, Conservatives ensured that the threshold to trigger a national security review was reduced so that Canadian resources, including intellectual property, are safer.

Among the changes proposed by the government in the bill is the removal of mandatory consultations with cabinet in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security. This change is problematic given the number of state-owned investments made in Canada over the past eight years that have not undergone a security review because of decisions made by past industry ministers. By removing cabinet from the process, decisions over whether an investment is considered injurious will receive less debate and scrutiny.

These are decisions that should have a national perspective that only cabinet could provide. Foreign investments often have national impacts on our economy and on multiple regions. To leave the discretion in the hands of one minister from one part of the country will negate a broad national perspective. It is a problem that this bill is only as strong as the minister's scrutiny, whoever the minister may be in the future. Conservatives believe matters of such importance should be scrutinized by all of cabinet to make sure nothing slips through the cracks.

As I mentioned, one Conservative amendment that was approved at committee was about reducing the threshold to trigger a national security review from $512 million to zero dollars for all state-owned enterprise investments made in Canada. Lowering that threshold was critical so that at least it would trigger and initiate a security review.

Another Conservative amendment that was passed would ensure that items reviewable under the national security review process include acquisitions of any assets by a state-owned enterprise. Until now, the review only applied to acquisitions of the controlling shares of an industry. That was a huge loophole, as it opened the door to circumvent a review where a deal was structured as an asset purchase. For example, buying the shares of a mining company could be reviewed but buying the mines themselves could not. This is a welcome change.

Another amendment would ensure that an automatic national security review is conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges. Another change would require the minister to review any investments or acquisitions made in Canada that exceed $1.9 billion in enterprise value instead of it being an option.

Conservatives could have improved this legislation further had the NDP-Liberal government not rejected many notable Conservative improvements to this legislation. Among the common-sense Conservative amendments that failed to pass committee was one that would have modified the definition of “state-owned enterprise” to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state such as China.

Another amendment that was defeated would have exempted non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the national security review process to prevent any overly broad review processes. Another amendment would have ensured that an automatic national security review is conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges. One other amendment would have implemented a requirement for the minister to trigger a national security review automatically whenever the investment review threshold was triggered. The last would have required the minister to conduct a national security review by changing the word “may” to “shall” to ensure a review would be triggered whenever it is in the new threshold.

It is important that we get this right. Recently at the ethics committee, there was a study on foreign interference and the role that nations, particularly China and Russia, are playing as state-owned actors in making investments in our economy for the purpose of control, including controlling Canadian businesses, Canadian minerals, Canadian resources and, in many cases, some of our northern and offshore areas.

Therefore, it becomes critically important for the government to keep a keen eye, and multiple eyes in fact, on what is happening with foreign investment and approvals. We believe that Conservatives have improved the bill dramatically. We are trying to improve it again in the spirit of good public policy for Canada and protecting our economy against hostile interests, which the Liberals seem not to be that interested in.

I urge the House, including all members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the government, to recognize that cabinet's decision-making process is essential to understanding the national impacts of foreign investment. I urge members to vote for our amendment. By removing clause 15 from the bill, all security review decisions would remain reviewable by cabinet and not just by the ministers of industry and public safety. This is all about protecting Canadians and protecting our valuable assets, our businesses, our national security and certainly our interests.

We must take sensitive transactions seriously, and we have failed to fully review some transactions, particularly as they relate to Chinese state-owned enterprises of the past. A Conservative government would not only protect Canadian investment but build Canadian companies and attract investments to grow them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that Parliament significantly reformed the ICA in 2009. That was of course done under a majority Conservative government led by Prime Minister Harper. At that time, a very ill-advised step was taken. The Conservative government raised the thresholds that would trigger a net benefit review of an investment under the act and eliminated most sector-specific requirements, with the notable exception of cultural businesses. At the same time, Parliament enacted provisions that granted the federal government more extensive powers to screen and potentially block any foreign investment that could threaten national security.

Does my hon. colleague know how many investments have been blocked since 2009 under the foreign investment national security criterion?

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

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting that the NDP is stuck in the past. Its members want to keep talking about the last Conservative government or Mr. Harper. My recommendation is that the member and his party start thinking about their future, because it is dismal to tie their wagon to this calamitous Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to comment on the issue we are debating, which he did extensively. A lot of the questions from the government and the NDP are not about what we are debating today, which is whether cabinet should be included in the decision-making process.

I would like the member to comment in particular about the members from the Bloc, who seem to think it is okay for cabinet to be eliminated and therefore have no Quebec input on acquisitions made of Quebec companies. Does he thinks it is hypocritical of the Bloc to not express itself on whether it thinks cabinet decision-making should be there in any foreign takeover of a Quebec company?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a very large concern. One person should not have that much power in a democratic government, period. For example, let us say that the minister of the day is from Ontario and a foreign investor wants to come along from an authoritarian state and spend $30 billion buying a Volkswagen electric battery plant. The minister from Ontario would be under a lot of pressure to allow that type of investment to proceed, but it might not be in the national interest. That is why it is important to have multiple perspectives at the table when decisions are being made about investments that are national in scope and could have major effects on our GDP, our economy and our national security.

I agree that the Bloc is being hypocritical on this. It should support our amendment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, is the member saying that because a minister might be from one province, they would not have the capacity to represent the entire country and the interests of the entire country? Are we led to believe it is impossible for somebody who represents one particular region to represent the entire country? Is that not how we have been operating since Confederation?

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

Madam Speaker, I question the capacity of every minister in the government.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to this bill for the second time. Last February, I gave a speech on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. At the time, I talked about the many problems with this legislation and our intention to improve it in committee. I will come back later to the amendments we proposed. Some of them were adopted, while others were, unfortunately, rejected. I will start by talking about the genesis of this bill.

In the December 2021 mandate letter given to him by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry was asked to do the following, and I quote:

Contribute to broader efforts to promote economic security and combat foreign interference by reviewing and modernizing the Investment Canada Act to strengthen the national security review process and better identify and mitigate economic security threats from foreign investment.

I have to say that that was a legitimate request. Recently, there have been far too many cases where Canada's national security was potentially compromised because of the acquisition of Canadian businesses by foreign interests that are a bit too close to the central power. An update was more than welcome.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I would like to commend my Conservative Party colleagues, who are doing admirable work on the committee. I see it every week. Over the past two years, we have looked into several of this government's missteps regarding transactions and contracts that could compromise our national security.

One of the most recent examples is from 2017, when the Minister of Industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by the Chinese company Hytera Communications, which is partly owned by the People's Republic of China. This is just one of many examples.

After eight years of this government, too many foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and citizens' data. Rather than taking the situation seriously, the minister is giving himself more powers with this bill and not making up for the negligence that allowed the contracting incidents involving Zijin Mining, Hytera and the RCMP to happen.

A few weeks ago, during study of the bill in committee, security experts were invited to highlight the acquisitions that were not subject to a national security or net benefit review, even though the threshold under the Canada Investment Act had been met. Other witnesses pointed out the evolution of the dynamic of the Chinese private sector economy and the fact that many Chinese businesses operating on an international level are now beholden to the demands made by the Chinese Communist Party, even though they are not directly controlled by the state.

Charles Burton argued in favour of a stricter review framework for state-owned enterprises entering into Canada, including those belonging to the private sector who have their head offices in authoritarian countries like China. We proposed an amendment to that effect. We asked that the definition of state-owned enterprise be reviewed to include private enterprises that have their offices or their head offices in an authoritarian country. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. The definition of state-owned enterprise therefore remains too vague in our opinion.

Another point raised by witnesses was the need for greater clarity on which sectors should be considered strategic in order to ensure a more consistent review process. Professor Patrick Leblond argued that establishing a list of specific sectors necessary to ensure national security would prevent the review system from becoming entirely politicized. Knowing what we do about this government, more safeguards are needed.

To sum up what we studied in committee and what the witnesses told us, it is safe to say that this is too little, too late. There are too many flaws in this bill. It appears that this government is not taking sensitive transactions seriously and is not doing the necessary due diligence, putting the security of our government and our citizens at risk.

The most significant change this bill makes is the power that the minister is giving himself. I think this is unacceptable, which is why we introduced the amendment we are discussing today. Under the current act, the minister must submit to cabinet his intention to conduct a security review when a foreign interest acquires a Canadian company. Cabinet must give its approval.

In the bill before us, the minister gives himself the power to decide whether to conduct a security review with the consent of the Minister of Public Safety, but without cabinet approval. Only two ministers would be responsible for decisions with potentially very serious repercussions. Imagine two Ontario ministers deciding the future of a Quebec company without any other Quebec cabinet minister having a say in the matter. I hope that my Bloc Québécois colleagues are listening to me carefully and that they will vote in favour of our amendment. We know that this Liberal cabinet has made some very bad decisions, but this is a safeguard that needs to stay in place.

Here are a few more examples of the changes we were able to make to this bill, which was overly flawed. We secured a reduced threshold to trigger a national security review for all state-owned enterprises. It went from $512 million to zero dollars in asset value for companies not listed as trade agreement investors. This ensures that all investments made by state-owned enterprises will be reviewable. We also implemented a requirement that an automatic national security review be conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges.

We managed to add another factor to ensure that the elements reviewed as part of the national security review process include asset acquisitions by state-owned enterprises, not only new business locations, share purchases and acquisitions.

Finally, we implemented a requirement for the minister to conduct a national security review each time the investment review threshold is reached. Simply put, this amendment requires that the minister review any investments or acquisitions made in Canada that exceed $1.9 billion in enterprise value instead of it being an option.

The amendments that we proposed sought to create a more robust review process. We could have made even more improvements to this bill, but unfortunately at least seven of our amendments were rejected.

We are talking about national security here. This government did not take some of our issues and concerns seriously, and that is extremely important. For example, we sought to authorize the government to go back and redo a security review for Canadian businesses acquired by state-owned companies to allow for a more flexible process. The Liberals rejected our proposals.

As I said earlier, this government's desire to address the matter of national security is too little too late. The dynamic between nations is changing, and the future is uncertain. The Government of Canada must be more vigilant than ever. On this side of the House, we have always taken the matter of national security seriously, and Canadians can count on us to ensure that it will be a top priority in the future.

I want to once again add that I sincerely thank my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, because they have a very good reputation and do outstanding work to ensure our country's national security.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving on the committee with that hon. member, who does amazing work and has worked very hard on this bill.

I know one puzzling thing is that, as we are here in report stage actually debating a further amendment to the bill that we proposed, somehow, we have not heard from the Bloc Québécois on whether they believe that the minister, on his or her own, should be able to make the decisions on a foreign acquisition of a Quebec company, without any input from cabinet colleagues in Quebec. That is the change the government is trying to make to the bill, removing cabinet from the process, which could potentially remove Quebec from any input in the decision-making on a foreign takeover.

Could the member comment on why we have had such silence from the Bloc on this issue?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is quite incredible to see the Bloc Québécois aligning itself with the government again today to vote against an opposition motion to remove the carbon tax on all types of home heating.

The Bloc Québécois is in an odd position here, because we are proposing an amendment that would keep us—

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

I apologize to the hon. member, but I must interrupt.

I would ask members to lower their voices and not make a ruckus while the hon. member is answering a question.

The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière‑du‑Loup.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that I hope the Bloc will vote with us on this amendment.

The possibility of having two ministers from Ontario or British Columbia who would be responsible for public safety, innovation and industry would mean that no one in cabinet would have any power or say over a decision concerning a company that could be sold in Quebec and acquired by other companies around the world. We therefore fail to understand the Bloc's position on this matter.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. colleague could comment on the importance of putting the safety and security of Canadian citizens, those who call this nation home, as the primary objective of government. We all know government has competing affections and responsibilities, but of utmost importance is the security and safety of Canadians. If that is not looked after, Canadians are actually not able to prosper in the way they deserve to. It is incumbent, then, upon the government of the day to ensure that decisions are taken with utmost sobriety and with the greatest judgment possible, and that a great deal of attention is given to research. In this case, of course, that has to do with foreign investments, in order to make sure that Canadians are kept safe and secure and that our prosperity is able to be furthered.

I wonder whether my colleague could comment on that and perhaps on where my Liberal government colleagues across the aisle maybe got that right and where they maybe got it wrong in the bill.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question since, indeed, when we talk about national security and the security of companies that might be acquired or that have a national security interest, it is vital that we ensure that the process is done properly.

Unfortunately, several of the amendments we proposed were rejected. They would have enhanced the quality of the work that the government in place should have done to ensure that we do not get taken for a ride, which is what happened in several cases where the minister approved acquisitions in Canada that never should have happened.

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

Madam Speaker, an amendment was promised at committee that all companies headquartered in China would be subject to an automatic review. The Liberals defeated that amendment. Could the member explain why?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the current Prime Minister has the utmost admiration for the President of China. Again, when it comes to totalitarian countries like China that want to acquire Canadian technologies, it is vital that we find a way to act. I think that our amendments were designed to help—

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

I must interrupt the member. We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

Ultimately, at the very heart of this debate is the prosperity of Canadians and their well-being. For Canadians to prosper, the government of the day needs to do three things. It needs to grant freedom to the people: freedom to dream, freedom to take risks and freedom to earn a living. The government of the day needs to facilitate an environment of economic prosperity where folks can dream, take a risk and invest, where red tape is cut and where taxes are decreased so that people can flourish. The government of the day also needs to prioritize the safety and security of Canadians. Without our borders being secure and without the safety of Canadians being front of mind by the government, it is rather difficult to pursue these other things.

That said, we also know that the government needs to get out of the way as much as possible. When looking at this legislation and the amendments made to the Investment Canada Act, one must ask this question: Where does the balance lie between government engagement or involvement and none?

Here in Canada we have incredibly industrious and talented people. We have people who combine their talents with the bounty of the land to prosper, and they make amazing things possible. I think of the farmer who works his land and brings it to harvest. I think of the fisherman who works on dangerous high seas. I think of the miner who works miles underground. I think of the business owner who brings her passion to life through innovation and hard work to create jobs for others and, of course, to earn a living herself.

Because of the greatness of the people who call Canada home, I believe we can participate in a broader global economy as well. That is where the bill comes in. This broader global economy presents amazing opportunities for Canadian businesses and allows us to spur innovation. Our quality of life grows when the Canadian economy can offer so much to the world and to each Canadian. The world in turn, of course, invests in Canada. Our economy then grows even more and Canadians are empowered to live fulfilling lives to an even greater extent.

While the global economy generates many opportunities, it also invites threats, which is again where Bill C-34 comes into play. It is why it is so very important that we as Canadians are vigilant in making sure that the investments we are attracting into our country are ones that we indeed want to attract, ones that are good for Canada. It means that a robust review process is absolutely necessary to ensure this is the case. A thorough and robust review process, I would argue, is an absolute must.

The globe is not made up entirely of governments that desire peace and goodwill for all people. We know that, perhaps more now than many years ago. We know that some states pose a threat to the very way of life we enjoy here in Canada. They do not desire the prosperity of Canada, nor do they approach our market in good faith. In fact, they have other objectives in mind. These countries are not our friends. That is why it so very important that we get legislation like this right.

It is the duty of the government to ensure that Canadians are kept safe and secure, that good decisions are made and that the right investments are drawn into the borders of our land. Certain countries operate with covert agendas and work to undermine the security of our nation and the prosperity of its people. This often happens through the vectors of our international trade and the acquisition of Canadian assets. This is why, again, it is so important for security reviews to be done in a thorough and timely manner. I will use some examples to highlight what I mean.

In 2017, the Minister of Industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of the B.C.-based telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies. The Chinese company Hytera Communications wanted to acquire them. We know that Hytera Communications is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. A careful review should have been done but was not.

Fast-forward then to December 2022, and the RCMP actually awarded a contract for sensitive communications system equipment to this technologies firm. Again, I will remind the House that it is partially owned by Beijing.

This company then, in January, only a month after the contract was awarded to them, was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States, and then banned from doing business in the U.S. by President Biden.

This company is one that was given access to all RCMP communications services. Of course, we could imagine what that does to our overall safety and security as a nation and to the confidence that Canadians can place in the RCMP.

Here is another example. In 2020, even more insultingly, the Department of Foreign Affairs actually awarded a contract to a Chinese-based company called Nuctech, founded by the son of a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. They were contracted to supply X-ray equipment to 170 Canadian embassies and consulates. One can quickly imagine what the impact of such a decision would be, in terms of the types of intelligence that could be gathered through doing X-rays, especially in a place like an embassy or a consulate.

It would seem that in some ways it is almost on brand for the Liberal government to turn a blind eye to these important decision-making processes and just allow things to flow the way that they will, which is actually putting Canadians in jeopardy then. This is where responsibility needs to be exercised, and I would even dare say just some basic common sense. We have to take precautions in order to safeguard the people of this country and our economic prosperity as a nation.

Speaking of economic prosperity, what could be more prosperous than people earning a living for themselves and being able to take that money and invest it where it needs to go. What could be more important than government getting out of the way and allowing those Canadians to spend their money as they need to, in order to make ends meet.

In fact, right now, Canadians are actually finding it more difficult than ever before to do that. In large part, that is because of a carbon tax that is applied to everything from home heating to food to the fuel that we put in our vehicles. The Liberal government coming under immense pressure from the Canadian public, knowing that they were having a difficult time being able to afford life, made the decision that it would take the carbon tax off a small portion of people in Canada for a short time. It would hit the pause button and scrap the carbon tax for three years for those who live in Atlantic Canada and use oil heating. However, those who are in my province of Alberta who use natural gas are out of luck. They still have to pay the carbon tax.

We thought we would give the hon. members across from us the opportunity to make this fair for all Canadians, because, of course, choosing a favourite 3% is not fair and it is no way to govern a nation properly. The Conservative Party put forward a motion, and that motion was voted on today. It was a motion that invited all members in this place to vote to scrap the carbon tax for all Canadians, to make it fair from coast to coast to coast, which is what any government should want to do. It should be concerned about the unity of this great country and the economic prosperity of its people.

This place was given an opportunity to vote in favour, with the Conservatives, and to bring that motion into play, which would have saved Canadians thousands of dollars. Instead, the members across the way decided to vote that motion down. They voted to make life more expensive and less affordable for Canadians. They decided that they wanted the carbon tax to be applied to 97% of Canadians, but taken away from 3%. The government across the way determined that its polls were down in Atlantic Canada, and so it needed to show favour to that 3% but the rest could be punished. It is sad.

Parliament, this place, those who sit here were given an opportunity to be on the side of the everyday Canadian person. Instead, Liberals chose to play politics.

The bill that is before us today is yet another opportunity to be on the side of the Canadian people and to make sure that their safety, security and well-being is put first and foremost, which means that more than 10 amendments that were brought forward by Conservative members at committee should have been accepted in order to strengthen this legislation and make it better for all.

Unfortunately, again, the government of the day actually shot those amendments down. While the bill that we debate today makes some minor improvements, and I cannot fault the government for that, I do fault the government for not going all the way and making this bill even stronger. That is very sad. There could have been multipartisan co-operation to strengthen this bill. Again, the government of the day—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Lethbridge's speech, and I am particularly interested in the example she gave about Hytera. For those who are watching and do not understand, the Chinese-based state-owned company that bought it does not make money; it actually loses money every year. These state-owned enterprises are not only acquiring Canadian companies but also winning contracts by being the lowest bidder for Canadian companies not making money.

Could the member please inform the House what she thinks the motivation might be of a state-owned enterprise if it is not making money in acquiring these businesses?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the existing committee and the committee of industry before it actually took opportunity to study this issue extensively. In addition to that, there have been other investigations done. What has been found is that at times, there will be state actors that will make an investment in Canada or purchase a business that exists within Canada and do so for the sake of the state actor. It is in their interest, not in the interest of the Canadian people. It is not in the interest in the furtherance of our nation. It is not in the economic interest of Canada. Rather, in this case in particular, it is the Communist Party of China that ultimately will benefit from such a decision. Again, this is where proper review and consultation are so important when we look to allow these foreign investments in Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, understanding that in deciding to invest in Canada, there has to be a balance between what will generate prosperity in Canada and protecting national security, I wonder whether the member can comment on whether she thinks this bill would balance more toward the prosperity of Canada or more toward national security.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I may, with the deepest respect, I think it is a dichotomy that maybe is not necessary. It is possible to do both. It is possible to look after the safety and security of Canadians, to make sure our nation is put first and foremost, and also to want to cultivate prosperity for the Canadian people. Both can be done, but it comes down to the review process.

For example, in the bill before us, one of the things is that a minister would be able to make a decision on their own, without having to bring it to cabinet. By doing that, the minister would actually be acting unilaterally, and I would say rejecting the collective wisdom cabinet would have to offer in many of these cases. Cabinet is an assortment of individuals from many different ways of life, many different backgrounds and different regions, so its ministers have access to information that could help a robust discussion to take place and an educated decision be made. When cabinet is kept out of that process and the minister makes the decision all by himself or herself, Canadian people are put at a disadvantage.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like a quorum call.

And the count having been taken: