Debates of May 31st, 2023

Democratic Institutions

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

Madam Speaker, his question goes to exactly my point. He is trying to suggest that somehow this side of the House or the government could possibly answer that question. Unless we had actual involvement in the Trudeau Foundation, it would be impossible to answer that question. Nobody on this side of the House has anything to do with the Trudeau Foundation. Sorry, one person might be—

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

You are filibustering on public accounts.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

I just want to remind the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan he had an opportunity to ask the question and an opportunity to listen to the answer. I know he is a lawyer by trade, and he knows the court of law would not allow this to happen either, so I would just ask the hon. member, who may not like the answer, to listen.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, somebody might be a member of an organization but certainly not in a role to make any decisions, and that is the point that has been made repeatedly. Conservatives would like to paint the picture that the Prime Minister is involved.

He asked the question of why they will not come to committee. How on earth could I possibly answer that question when I am not involved in the Trudeau Foundation nor is anybody on this side of the House?

Carbon Pricing

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight, after midnight, for this adjournment debate as a result of another non-answer from the government side. When I originally rose in question period, the government member's response to the question at that time was some non-answer about much money people in the member's province were going to get back of the money that his government had previously taxed from them, and then some incoherent words about conspiracy theories and cryptocurrency.

Since I posed that initial question, we have learned that the minister plans to add carbon tax 2.0 to the backs of Canadian taxpayers. This new carbon tax will add an additional 17¢ per litre to the current tax, and with the sales tax on the carbon taxes, it will mean up to 61¢ per litre as a result of carbon taxes, another burden that Canadians are being forced to bear to pay for the government’s overspending habit. The second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household $573 per year, without any rebate, costing some families in some provinces as much as $1,157. These numbers are from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I want to put this into perspective. It has been 15 years since a carbon tax was implemented in B.C., a tax that initially started at 2.41¢ per litre. It originally started out as a revenue-neutral tax; the revenues would go directly toward reducing personal income taxes. That was until an NDP government decided the B.C. carbon tax would no longer be revenue-neutral, but would instead go into general revenue to help pay for the NDP government’s overspending habit. I think the members listening will see the similarities here in establishing a small tax initially, gradually turning up the heat, hoping people would be distracted by other crises, and then using those tax dollars to pay for bad spending habits. Once more, we have evidence of the indistinguishable ideologies of the Liberals and the NDP, as such, the NDP-Liberal coalition we are currently dealing with, which is making Canadians pay for the government’s bad spending habit.

I am sure the Liberal member will come back with some comment about how the carbon tax and carbon tax 2.0 are somehow going to prevent wildfires or flooding, but they have yet to show how that is going to be accomplished. The government has failed to meet any emissions targets, and instead of facilitating the export of cleaner Canadian natural gas to high-emissions countries, they have left those countries to seek out coal and other dirty energy sources from countries with poor environmental and human rights standards, a poor, if not failed, record at best.

Will the government take control of its bad spending habit, stop pushing higher taxes on Canadians, who are already struggling under its inflationary policies, and cancel the planned tax increases?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member brought up the Liberal-NDP coalition. Normally, I would say that there is a Conservative coalition with the Bloc Québécois, but not even on this issue does the Bloc agree with the Conservatives. As a matter of fact, every other party that is represented in this House agrees that putting a price on pollution is the right thing to do.

The member said that the question was not answered during the debate or during question period when he asked, but it actually was. It goes to the heart of what the member neglected to mention in his speech and, indeed, what Conservatives continually neglect to mention. The answer was this:

...as much as the Conservatives would like to deny it, climate change is real. What else is real? Those cheques that are arriving in people's mailboxes beginning April 14. In my home province of Manitoba, people will receive $250 a quarter, over $1,000 a month.

The interesting thing is that I would have thought that when the member was getting towards the end of his question, he would have said that I would have come back with some line on the rebate. However, he did not even do that. He should have been able to predict that I was going to do that. Instead, he said something about how I was going to try to justify that this stops wildfires or whatnot.

No, what I have been saying all along, and what we have been saying all along, and what the Conservatives have missed all along is the fact that people are getting money back. This rebate has always been there. The whole point of the price on pollution was not to put money into the general revenues, as the member said. The point of the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as Conservatives like to call it, is to put a price mechanism on carbon, to put a price on pollution. In that way, people have to actually make a choice. In making that choice, they might be incentivized not to pollute and, instead, to try to find an option that does not pollute as much.

Again, I would remind the member that I will answer the question the same way that the parliamentary secretary did during question period. This is to say that Conservatives continually neglect the fact that there is a rebate that comes back, because it does not suit their narrative. However, it actually is a reality.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member pointed out that there is going to be money going back to Canadians, because that is what it is.

It is money going back to Canadians who have already paid it out. They have paid it to the government. That is the only way the government has money to give to Canadians, by taxing it out of Canadians' back pockets. Therefore, the parliamentary secretary has pointed out the major flaw with what they are doing here. The Liberals are simply taking taxpayer dollars to run their bad spending habits, then giving a little of it back. It just does not make any sense.

Why has the country not taken real, concrete steps to export our clean natural gas to countries that are burning coal and other dirty fuels?

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

Madam Speaker, he is right. We are giving it back. He asks why, and I actually just told him when I was answering the initial question he posed. The answer is that this has never been about trying to collect revenue for the government. This has always been about incentivizing choice in the marketplace. When a price is put on something, it changes people's behaviour in terms of how they make their decisions on purchases.

In terms of his point that people are just getting a little money back, that is not true. The majority of Canadians get back more than they end up paying. If someone is extremely wealthy, has many vehicles and a very large home that takes a lot of natural gas to heat in the winter, perhaps in that case, they will end up paying a little more than they get back. However, the vast majority of Canadians, in particular the middle class, will get more back than they are putting into it.

Democratic Institutions

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here this evening past midnight to debate a vitally important matter. We are here this evening again because we see the blissful ignorance of the government in permitting Chinese state-owned enterprises to acquire control over Canada's mining industry. It is more unconscionable when it is impossible for Canadian companies to acquire mining land claims or control over any Chinese company, especially involving critical minerals.

According to Guy Saint-Jacques, Canada's former ambassador to China, “There's no level playing field for foreign companies in China, and many sectors remain closed to them, or access is similarly limited.” When appearing before a parliamentary committee, he added, “China does not play by international trade rules.” No kidding. It is quick to complain about perceived injustices of other countries toward it, but not so quick to provide fair treatment to foreign companies trying to operate in China.

Like with foreign interference, Canada has again been reduced to being a doormat for China. Canada has given China free rein to do whatever it wants under pathetic oversight from Ottawa.

The Globe and Mail reported in August 2022 that three years ago, Sinomine Resource Group Co. bought the Tanco mine in Manitoba. Tanco was one of the world's few sources of the critical mineral cesium. The mine previously produced lithium, a battery metal used in electric cars. The government had the authority to block the acquisition on national security grounds, but instead of blocking it, Ottawa did nothing. Later, the Tanco mine was acquired by China and started producing lithium to ship back home.

Sinomine also secured an offtake agreement guaranteeing it all of the lithium, cesium and tantalum produced by Power Metals Corporation's Case Lake critical minerals property. Offtake agreements are just as good as ownership and do not create irritating media stories. The government also approved the sale of Canada's lithium development company Neo Lithium Corp. to a Chinese state-owned company, and in its infinite wisdom, the government decided not to order an advanced security screening of the deal.

Mr. Jeffrey Kucharski, a former assistant deputy minister of Alberta's Department of Energy, stated before a parliamentary committee, “How can Canada build a lithium supply chain, or any other critical mineral for that matter, when it allows the assets of Canadian companies to be acquired by a country that seeks to cement its dominance in this sector?” Beijing supports its state-owned enterprises by providing subsidies, access to cheap capital and tax breaks that are much greater than anything that a western government can offer. While Canada has welcomed legitimate Chinese investment, there is little or no reciprocity, as I alluded to earlier with the comments of former ambassador Saint-Jacques.

China uses its dominant position in critical minerals to exert leverage over other countries. What has been Canada's response? It claims to want to scrutinize foreign takeovers. That is great. However, over the past five years, fewer than 1% were subjected to security reviews.

Canada should look to Australia for a road map. It has a tougher stand on proposed Chinese investments, and its government has rejected several transactions on national security grounds. Australia even strengthened its oversight by introducing a new “last resort” power, whereby it has the authority to review a previously approved transaction when national security risks emerge after the fact.

Canada may need China to bail out financially struggling mining companies, but that does not mean we have to give up complete control over our vital resources. Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, land claims are under provincial jurisdiction, and Canada continues to work with its provincial counterparts to further Canada's national interests in this area.

Canada welcomes foreign investment as a means to stimulate economic growth, create jobs and increase innovation, competitiveness and long-term prosperity. However, the government also ensures that significant foreign investments by non-Canadians encourage economic growth and employment opportunities in Canada and that all foreign investments are consistent with Canada's national security.

Foreign direct investment supports Canada's trades, skills and innovation ecosystems by expanding trade, advancing environmental co-operation, linking firms to global value chains, increasing access to global markets and attracting talent. In 2020, foreign-controlled multinationals contributed directly to Canada's long-term prosperity by being responsible for 20% of the jobs in Canada's corporate sector, 25% of the capital investment in 2019, 59% of the merchandise exports and 24% of global GDP of the corporate sector.

Foreign direct investment is critical to the success of Canadian mining. It provides access to capital for natural resource projects and infrastructure; helps diffuse technology, knowledge and intellectual property; increases innovation through competition; and opens global value chains to domestic firms. Canada's abundance of natural resources, clean energy, global market access, as well as its commitment to emission-reducing technology, make it a prime investment location for forward-thinking companies in the minerals and metal sector.

The mining industry is an important employer of indigenous peoples, providing jobs to over 16,500 individuals. Indigenous people account for 12% of our mining labour force, among the highest representation by industry. Canada is committed to advancing opportunities for meaningful engagement on potential projects at the earliest possible stage, in a culturally aware manner, among industry, indigenous peoples, and federal, provincial and territorial governments.

One of the priority themes under Canada's critical minerals strategy, launched in December 2022, is advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Another priority under the strategy is enhancing global security in partnership with allies. This includes efforts to strengthen the global supply chain resiliency, recognize that critical minerals are a strategic asset and contribute to Canada's prosperity and national security.

When it comes to China, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy clearly outlines the government's understanding of China as an increasingly destructive global power. We are not blind to China's pattern of using large-scale investments to establish its presence globally and tip the scales in its favour, creating dependencies in supply chains. This government has made it clear that Canada will always unapologetically defend our national interests. Canada's interests come first, and this applies to foreign direct investments as well.

Canada has a robust foreign investments review process under the Investment Canada Act. It requires prior approval of significant foreign investment for likely economic net benefit. More importantly, it also calls for a multistep review of all investments by non-Canadians that could be injurious to Canada's national security. Certainly, types of investments, such as those in critical minerals, receive special scrutiny in accordance with the current policy.

On October 28, 2022, the Government of Canada issued a policy to provide additional clarity regarding the application of the ICA to investments by foreign state-owned enterprises and private investors assessed as being closely tied to, or subject to influence from, foreign governments.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a vitally important issue for our country, and I am really troubled that the parliamentary secretary would say mining is a provincial jurisdiction, so I want to use this opportunity to remind him of legislation and frameworks that are federal and apply to mining. There is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian minerals and metals plan, the chemicals management plan, the Explosives Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Fisheries Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Indian Act, Indian mining regulations, interprovincial movement of hazardous waste regulations, metal and diamond mining effluent regulations, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is to name just a few.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the Investment Canada Act and national security reviews. I want to remind him that, over the past five years, fewer than 1% were subjected to security measures. This must be acted upon, and I implore him to please ensure the government acts to protect Canada's sovereignty and its industrial plan, which hinges on an integrated strategy and a supply chain with critical minerals.

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

Madam Speaker, if the only thing the member took from my previous comment is that land claims fall under provincial jurisdiction, it means that he did not listen to everything else that I said. Everything else that I said specifically spoke to what Canada does and what our federal government does to ensure our national interests are protected.

I can assure the member, with respect to his plea toward the end of his follow-up, that we are always looking out for the best interests of Canadians, we will always take Canadian sovereignty seriously and we will always defend Canadian interests, at any cost.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.)