Debates of Nov. 9th, 2023

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I chuckled when the hon. member mentioned middle-class Canadians, or those aspiring to be. It is funny how, after eight years, middle-class Canadians are now just trying to stay in the middle class as a result of all the policies of the government, with the affordability and inflation crisis caused by overspending and the debt that has accumulated.

I want to speak specifically about Bill C-34 and the mandatory notice regime. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty within industry right now as it relates to the applications that are in the process, in some cases by minority investors. As for the definition of the mandatory notice regime, and specifically what categories of investment would fall into that, there seems to be a little uncertainty. I wonder if the hon. member can tell us what that would be.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are some interim conditions that can be placed on investments. Many of the details the member is looking for would probably be best sought from the minister, because not all of it would be covered in the framework of the legislation being put forward.

Have said that, I want to comment on the member's observation, which I suggest is inaccurate. From the very beginning, we have been there to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. Let us compare Canada's record, with respect to interest rates and inflation rates, to virtually any of the G20 countries. I am thinking particularly of the United States. Canada has done reasonably well, very well compared to the U.S., but it does not mean we should not continue to support the middle class. That is one reason we came up with the grocery rebate. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to vote against supports for Canada's middle class.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of conversations this morning about the selling out of Canada by past governments, not only by the Harper government but also by the Mulroney government before that, and the signing of the disastrous Canada-China FIPA, where both Conservatives and Liberals, in an interesting coalition, I might add, voted on that.

I will give credit to the Liberal government for trying to fix its mistakes in Bill C-34. I appreciate that. However, I am confused and would love to hear the hon. member's comments. Even though the Conservatives have now recognized some mistakes and are trying to fix them, and they agree with the bill, why are they working so hard to delay the passage of it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the principles of free trade are something we have been very supportive of. That is one reason we have signed off on many agreements.

Just to add an interesting twist, the coalition today on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals. We are still waiting for confirmation from the Conservatives.

I am hoping we will get a unanimous coalition. I am not too sure about the Greens, to be honest. In terms of the recognized parties in the House, we are still waiting for the Conservative Party to stand up and say that it supports the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, and to date, there has been no indication. It was the member for Cumberland—Colchester who stood in this place and said that the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine was “woke” and that Canada was “taking advantage” of Ukraine, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Remember, it was the President of Ukraine who came to Canada in September this year, a month and a half ago, where an agreement was signed. Unbelievably, it is the Conservative Party that is preventing that legislation, that free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, yet it likes to say that it supports Ukraine. It is questionable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elucidate a bit more on the comments by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, because we know he was part of that group that travelled and that had $1,800 worth of champagne and other things. The Danube Institute partly supported that, alongside my cousin, Dan McTeague, and supposedly paid for all that. Imagine that.

The Danube Institute is promoting an attack on the work being done to defend Ukraine, claiming that it is woke, that we would have members of the Conservative Party in Europe meeting with those who say there is a “deep state” over NATO.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he has had a chance to look into this mysterious trip with bottles of wine and expensive dinners that were given to four members of the Conservative Party, including the member for Cumberland—Colchester, and this issue with the Danube Institute document that says it is going after so-called “woke” politics and NATO's support for Ukraine.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there have been very serious allegations, and those allegations have been referenced both on the floor of the House of Commons and in committee, I understand.

I believe the Conservatives owe an explanation. There is this far-right extremism coming out of the benches. They got thousands of dollars' worth of wine, not to mention main courses. Who paid for all of that? Was it the individual members of Parliament?

I think a lot needs to be looked into and, hopefully, the Ethics Commissioner will do that. Hopefully, the ethics standing committee will be afforded the opportunity to study the matter, because there are some real concerns. Is there a connection between that and some of the positions the Conservatives are taking today on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

I think there is some merit. I have heard it on several occasions on the floor of the House, and I was told by one or two people that it is even starting to come up in the ethics committee. I do not know the details, but I sure hope that is not what the stumbling block is, in terms of the Conservative Party's refusal to allow the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement to go to committee.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the issue of sponsored travel is coming up frequently in this place. I brought this up before, and I am interested in the hon. member's take on this.

The member for Timmins—James Bay, in 2022, took a sponsored travel trip to Berlin, Germany, which was an expensive $10,489. The trip was paid for by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. In 2007, NGO Monitor found that FES partnered with politicized NGOs to attack Israel.

Mossawa is one of the main Israeli-Arab NGOs involved in the political demonization of Israel. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay actually held a joint press conference in 2004 with Hezbollah. My question—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Obviously we struck a nerve about the $1,800 bottle of wine and the Danube Institute, but what the member is saying is a falsehood.

If the hon. member has evidence, I would have him submit it, if they will submit who actually paid for the $1,800 bottle of wine that the member for Cumberland—Colchester drank. If he wants to submit evidence, we would ask the Conservatives to give the evidence of who paid for all those drinks.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are descending into debate, and debate that is not necessarily on Bill C-34, which we are supposed to be discussing.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, talking about striking a nerve, my question to the hon. member who just gave his speech is this: Would he agree that having a press conference with Hezbollah is ill-advised?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest is that there are some very serious allegations and concerns related to the far right within the Conservative caucus today, and a trip that was made, for which the issue of ethical behaviour has also been raised. At the very least, let the standing committee on ethics, and possibly the Ethics Commissioner, become engaged on it.

I think there are some things that need to be answered. I was talking a lot about the importance of trade. My point is that I sure hope that the behaviour of some of the Conservatives within the caucus is not what is preventing the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine from being advanced at committee stage, because this is so important, not only for Canada but also for Ukraine. It would not only be in the best economic interests of both countries, but it is also the timing, given that there is a war taking place in Europe, and the powerful message it could send. I would still like to think that the trade agreement will, in fact, be passed at all stages, including royal assent, before Christmas.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today and talk about Bill C-34, which is the Liberals' attempt at increasing security on foreign investments in this country.

Before I get under way, I would like to announce that I am going to share my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Yellowhead.

This is an important issue in the country, and it is an important bill, Bill C-34, that we are facing here today. We cannot simply allow authoritarian regimes whose values and goals are fundamentally opposed to ours here in Canada to control important infrastructure or resources in this country. We must protect Canada's national economic and security interests. However, after eight years in power and two years after the industry committee presented this report on the issue, the government is finally trying to take action on the file. I want to acknowledge the work done in the committee both on the initial study and on improving the legislation before us. I think further improvements definitely can be made, but I will get into that a little later.

The world, as we know, is changing every day. Quite frankly, we all know this is kind of a dangerous time right now. National security needs to be top priority, even though the government has decided to take $1 billion out of the national defence fund at this time. It is unreal that the Liberals would even think of doing such a thing. Internationally, we have seen conflicts sprouting up almost every month. We have the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a perfect example of an authoritarian dictator willing to do whatever he wants to get whatever he wants. We look at the resources involved and ultimately how Russia will use violence to violate the sovereignty of its neighbour next door.

Domestically, we are seeing what countries will do to increase their influence and control where they cannot simply invade. Russia and Beijing are actively interfering in our elections, which we know is a fact. Kenny Chiu, whom I sat with in the last Parliament, is not here, because of the interference from Beijing. Also, foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property and other assets. They are gathering data daily on our citizens and they are exploiting that data. Just today, on the front page of the national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, the headline reads “Huawei still filing patents tied to work done with Canadian universities after Ottawa's restrictions.” It goes on to say that “The Chinese tech company Huawei Technologies is still seeking patents for research it conducted in partnership with publicly funded universities in Canada, more than two years after Ottawa began restricting funding for academic collaborations with connections to foreign states considered national security risks”.

Huawei has filed patent applications for research on 5G wireless; artificial intelligence, which has been brought up in the House in the last hour; semiconductors; and the optical communications done in collaboration with academics and investors at the University of Toronto. We have see it at Queen's University, the University of B.C., Western University and McMaster University. All those universities, they say, are fulfilling pre-existing contractual partnership agreements. However, let us make no mistake: All of the commercial rights to this property, which has been invented by Canadians and funded by Canadians, are now owned exclusively by Huawei. This is what we are talking about in Bill C-34. I have more to say on Huawei and what it has done in my province of Saskatchewan. I will come to that.

The end goal, obviously, is to take over as much of Canada's economy as possible in order to make us beholden to foreign powers that have no interest at all in democracy, freedom and the rule of law. We can see this happening all over this country. We see Chinese state-owned enterprises buying up farms, fisheries, mines and other things.

Even in my province of Saskatchewan, when I drive around, I will see signs in the ditch saying that if people want to sell land, they should call a certain 1-800 number. If they call that number, it could be a third party. Indirectly, what is happening is that somebody in Beijing or China is wanting to buy Saskatchewan farmland. Saskatchewan farmland, as we all know, has gone up considerably over a number of years because, in my province, we are proud of it. We want to feed the world. This is what we are seeing in this country in ditches everywhere. I mentioned Saskatchewan, and I have been to Manitoba, Alberta and elsewhere, and I know there are signs in ditches saying that that if people want to sell land, they should call a 1-800 number. When they do, they get a third party talking on behalf of probably China or other countries.

We are in a situation where people need to be able to trust that their Parliament and their federal government are protecting them and their country. Unfortunately, this is another example of the Liberal government's doing something too late with Bill C-34. The bill would not go far enough to address the risks faced by all 40 million of us Canadians. Given recent events, it needs to be much stronger.

I can recollect that in 2021, the industry committee studied the act and put out a report explaining how the act could be improved. Clearly, the government mostly ignored that report, because in Bill C-34, the government addressed only two of the nine recommendations that the committee put forward at that time. Let us fast-forward to this year at the industry committee, meeting once again. My Conservative colleagues were able to make some modifications to improve the bill and address some of the gaps, including important amendments that would ensure a more rigorous review process of investments and acquisitions by foreign state-owned enterprises. Those amendments were to lower the threshold for national security reviews of foreign purchases by state-owned enterprises, make it mandatory for the minister to conduct a national security review when that threshold is met and, finally, create an automatic national security review whenever a company has been convicted of corruption charges. These were important and necessary improvements to the bill. I am very glad that the committee saw the common sense of these amendments and adopted them.

However, the legislation still would not go far enough. The NDP-Liberal government rejected amendments that would have further improved the legislation and properly and fully protected Canadians. One of the rejected amendments, one which I think is crucially important, would have modified the definition of a state-owned enterprise to cover companies or entities headquartered in an authoritarian state like China. I understand the potential concerns with such an amendment; the nationality of the company should not usually be sufficient to label it a state-owned enterprise.

This is where I was going to get to Huawei and the reaction of the industry minister, a couple of years ago, in not making a decision on Huawei. I think it has cost my province of Saskatchewan $200 million. The province was invested into Huawei for 4G in the province of Saskatchewan. It was waiting for the minister of industry to make a decision on Huawei. It took him months. Finally, he made the decision, but the province of Saskatchewan was into Huawei for over $200 million, so it had to put on the brakes and then reinvent itself. This has cost Saskatchewan and others in this country millions of dollars. This is something that our allies in the Five Eyes alerted Canada about long before the minister made the change, and it has cost Canadians a lot of money.

I just wanted to make those points. I am concerned about Huawei, as it is taking information from the five universities still today, when actually Huawei should have been out of this country long ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to what the member is saying, and one cannot help but think about the time when Stephen Harper went to China and signed a secretive investment agreement. No one knew about it. Then, we get the Conservatives coming here, criticizing and asking why we would have power go to the minister.

This is good legislation, when we look at the input from the public safety minister and so forth to the minister. The legislation would give strength in terms of protecting Canadian interests when it it comes to foreign investments. I thought the member would have been supporting the legislation. Maybe he could provide his thoughts in terms of what some might be perceiving as a bit hypocritical, given the attitude that Stephen Harper had in the secretive deal for investments for China only.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what has been done is that the authority has been taken away from cabinet. It would rely on one minister. That minister could come from Quebec. That minister might come from who knows where in the country. Obviously that one minister might have a bias toward maybe his or her own riding or province. That is one reason we are a little upset with this. It has to go through cabinet. The more eyes that see this, the better. Only having one set of eyes looking at it is a major concern I see in Bill C-34.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent speech, particularly on the issues of the amendments to the bill that we managed to get passed. The bill missed the opportunity to do anything other than administrative changes, so we managed to update it to the geopolitical issues we have today. I am sure the minister will appreciate having those powers.

I would like to expand this a little more, because the Liberals voted against our amendment that would have focused strictly on the issue of headquarters in hostile states. This is a big national security issue. It is not to reject it, but just to make it an automatic review. I am not sure why the Liberals would be afraid to have the power to review it and decide whether they want to reject it on that basis.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as shadow minister, the member has done a great job looking after Bill C-34. The Conservatives put through several amendments. We had a page filled with amendments, but only had three or four passed. A number of them failed because there was a Bloc and Liberal conspiracy against the Conservatives. With what has happened here recently, as we have seen with the fuel pumps and everything happening in the Maritimes, now we know why the Bloc has partnered with the Liberals on this bill. There is 3% of Canadians who are affected in the Maritimes with the energy and 97% are shut out, but now we see why the Bloc has joined the Liberals in this bill.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's statements are kind of out there.

He does seem to think the Bloc Québécois is pretty important. That is interesting. He says the Bloc Québécois is responsible for removing the tax on heating oil in the Maritimes. Can he tell us which motion or act the Bloc Québécois voted for that made that happen, when that decision is solely within the purview of the current government? That is a question I would like to ask my colleague.

Anyway, I do want to add something about the bill we are debating today because it is easy to get off topic. The Bloc Québécois's criticism of Bill C‑34 relates to the thresholds that trigger a review. If we look at all the foreign investment proposals from 2022, the new measures would require a review of only about 10 of those 1,200 proposals. That is barely 2%.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Security of investments really is important, but what is being done to implement better mechanisms to broaden the foreign investment security review process?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about Quebec; this is about everybody in the country. I know he represents Quebec, being a Bloc member, but I will give one example from my province of Saskatchewan.

There have been $18 billion invested in the Jansen potash mine. It is the largest investment in the history of Saskatchewan. It is done by BHP Biliton out of Australia. It had the first phase, which is $12 billion, and it just announced another $6 billion. This is the kind of investment we need and can work with from this company from Australia, which will be headquartered eventually in Saskatoon.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, a bill that attempts to strengthen the Investment Canada Act with significant amendments.

As we approach the discussion on Bill C-34, a critical examination is warranted. It comes after an extensive period where our national interests have been left vulnerable to foreign entities.

After eight long years under the Liberal government, the urgency to safeguard our economic and security interests seems to have taken a back seat, as it has taken us this long to look at protecting Canada's economy.

The core concern here is the significant presence of state-owned enterprises, particularly from the People's Republic of China, the PRC, within the Canadian economic landscape. This is not a matter of casting doubt on foreign investment as a whole, which has long been a source of innovation and growth within our economy. However, there is a distinction to be made when such investments are linked to foreign governments with agendas that do not align with Canadian values or interests.

Bill C-34 proposes to strengthen the Investment Canada Act, yet one cannot help but ponder whether the measures are sufficiently robust.

This bill does introduce mechanisms that might allow us to better scrutinize these investments. Indeed, the imposition of stringent penalties and the elevation of national security reviews are steps in the right direction. However, the specifics with which we address the challenge posed by the PRC are lacking.

It is imperative to understand that the issue at hand is not one of mere procedural delays or legislative enhancements. It is a matter of national sovereignty and the integrity of our economic and security infrastructure.

The amendments within Bill C-34 would grant the minister enhanced powers to investigate and intervene, yet there remains an imperative to want to question the thoroughness of this approach.

Have we provided a framework robust enough to contend with the sophisticated strategies employed by state-owned enterprises, particularly those backed by the government in Beijing? The PRC has demonstrated its capacity and inclination to wield economic leverage as a tool of broader geopolitical strategy. The foresight is to anticipate the sectors of our economy that may be targeted for acquisition, and control is crucial.

The legislation mentions the creation of a list of sensitive sectors that would warrant automatic review, yet it does not preclude the possibility of loopholes being exploited.

Let us turn our attention to the particulars of Bill C-34, where we must sift through the substance of proposed reforms.

The bill, as it stands, attempts to pre-emptively secure investments that might pose a risk to national security by instituting a mandatory filing requirement. This is indeed a prudent move, but how we define specified investments and the criteria for such pre-emptive measures must be crystal clear to avoid any grey areas that could be exploited.

In simplifying the process for the minister to act on national security reviews, we are placing significant trust in the judgment and efficacy of a single point of failure. While streamlining may expedite action, it also bypasses layers of scrutiny that can be vital in making balanced decisions. In the hands of one, the decision may be swift, but the question remains, will it be thorough?

Strengthening penalties for non-compliance sends a clear signal. It communicates the seriousness with which we take these matters. However, the deterrent effect of these penalties lies in their enforcement. Without a track record of rigorous enforcement, penalties on paper may not translate into a meaningful deterrent in practice. We must not just increase fines; we must demonstrate that we will impose them.

Also, granting the minister authority to impose conditions and accept undertakings opens the door to inconsistencies and influence of which we must be wary. When we consider the removal of the Governor in Council's involvement in the initial stages of a national security review, we must ask if we are centralizing power to the point of vulnerability. Oversight is not an enemy of deficiency, but a bedrock of democracy.

In continuing discussion, we must bear in mind the history that brings us to this juncture. We are not operating in a vacuum, but against a backdrop of past decisions and actions that have left us questioning the robustness of our investment review process. As we proceed with this dialogue, it is crucial to reflect on past actions that serve as a backdrop to today's discussions on Bill C-34.

We cannot ignore instances where our review mechanisms seem to falter, where foreign acquisitions proceeded with what some would argue was insufficient scrutiny. The case of Norsat International and subsequent dealings involving sensitive technology raises an eyebrow to the effectiveness of our past reviews.

This is not about pointing fingers, but about understanding the gravity of what is at stake. The acquisition of Neo Lithium Corp. by Zijin Mining and the Canada Border Services Agency's use of Hytera Communications equipment, despite espionage charges against Hytera in another allied nation, illustrates a pattern we cannot afford to ignore.

Our legislative framework should not only close the doors to such occurrences in the future, but also serve as a deterrent. Moreover, the pace of global change does not afford us the luxury of reactive policy. We need proactive measures that ensure the safety and security of our nation's interests. This includes comprehensive reviews of state-owned enterprises' acquisitions, regardless of size, especially when countries with aggressive postures on the global stage are involved.

As we bring these concerns into the present context, the urgency to address them becomes clear. We are at a crossroads where the discussions we make today may shape our economic and national security for years to come.

Bill C-34 is a step, but there is concern that it does not go far enough. We must ask ourselves, is this legislation merely a reaction to the past oversights, or is it a visionary move to secure our future?

While it makes strides in certain areas, it falls short in terms of automatic reviews and clarity in defining strategic sectors. In the ideal world, every investment would bring mutual benefits without compromising our national interests, yet we know the world is far from ideal, and the bill in its current form does not fully rise to the complex challenges we face.

Part of our duty is to ensure the security of Canada's future. Our duty is to enact legislation that does not just respond to yesterday's challenges, but anticipates tomorrow's threats. While Bill C-34 moves to tighten the reins on foreign investment and strengthen our defences, we must ensure it is not a case of too little, too late.

This is not just about adjusting the mechanism of the Investment Canada Act. It is about safeguarding the heart of Canadian innovation and security. Our vigilance in reviewing and improving this bill will demonstrate our unyielding commitment to the prosperity and security of Canada.

Let us ensure that this legislation is more than a response to past oversights. Let it be a steadfast guideline of our future economic sovereignty. This is our duty and it is one we must undertake with the utmost seriousness and dedication.

I appreciate the opportunity to address these crucial issues. Let us proceed with a clear vision and a firm resolve to protect the interests of Canada. I look forward to taking questions.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion]

Mr. Speaker, when I am talking to industry innovators, researchers and even the clean technology sector, they expect the act to be transparent. They expect our national security interests to be protected. While we continue to grow the economy and create well-paying jobs, it is important to take note of our national security interests, but also to protect the interests of our innovators and researchers.

I would love to hear the member's thoughts on that aspect.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the protection of innovation, technology and researchers in Canada has been lacking quite a bit in Canada. It seems they are working with such companies as Huawei, and there are no safeguards put in place. The minister promised us in February that these safeguards were coming. Have we heard of anything yet? No, we have not. Unfortunately, that is substantially lacking.

We need to take action now to protect our innovation and security here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, by rejecting Conservative amendments to create bright-line rules, such as those regarding investments from companies headquartered in hostile states being immediately referred to a review, and by not exempting our Five Eyes partners, which all clearly show not just democratic values but also market values, we are competing on taxes, environmental processes and investment rules for timely decisions.

Does the member believe that the government has lost a major opportunity to welcome that investment quickly into our country from those countries that are aligned with us, and the opportunity to immediately send a signal to foreign states that want to use our investment rules for their own strategic advantage?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question because the member brought a very specific thing forward when he referred to the Five Eyes and our stance on the world stage.

We basically do not have the same type of security anymore where our Five Eyes are actually partners with us. It seems to be more like “four eyes” now. The problem is that they are leaving Canada out of a lot of security discussions because of the decisions we have made in the past and continue today. The government is lacking a lot of the oversight that needs to be done to protect security and innovation in Canada, which it is not upholding. We are definitely losing out in a lot of areas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.

I would like to talk about common sense. I am going to tell a true story and I would like my colleague to tell me if it makes sense.

We are talking about the Conservative Party, who, today, is worried about foreign investments and our national security. However, that same party nearly had a leader who worked as a consultant for a company that is banned in Canada and that my colleague named: Huawei.

That company has been banned by the Five Eyes. Obviously, as usual, the federal government was lagging behind and Canada was the last country in the Five Eyes to ban Huawei.

I would like my colleague to explain how we are supposed to trust the Conservative Party when it allowed a person who worked closely as a consultant with a banned company to be a candidate for leadership of the party.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was quite a story he told. Just because someone runs for leadership does not mean they are the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. We have an open process and allow anybody to run.

One of the problems that we have in Canada is companies such as Huawei. The Liberal government took years to finally say that it should not be allowed to operate in Canada. The real story here is about the failure of the Liberal government to stand up for Canadians in security by making companies such as Huawei available. Even to this day, it is still working with universities to build technology. It just filed patents last week with Canadian universities.

It is shameful that the Liberal government is not standing up for safety and security in Canada.