Ed Fast

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, February 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I do thank the member for that very good question. He has not yet provided us with a copy of the amendment that he would like to propose. We will look at it very carefully.

Quite frankly, it sounds like it makes sense. We, as Conservatives, strongly believe that the Investment Canada Act must be made more robust. I believe the member knows that we will be bringing forward our own amendments at committee to make sure we get that outcome. We do, in principle, support the legislation. It is just that it is a bill that is so lacking in substance when we have an opportunity now to get this right.

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, February 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have yet to learn that they should never ask a former international trade minister a question they do not know the answer to.

Here is the answer. I get my information from the International Monetary Fund. Members will notice that the member did not actually address investment. He talked about GDP, economic performance and regulation, but he did not talk about Canada being a destination for investment.

The IMF said, “According to the latest results...the world’s top ten recipients of foreign direct investment...[are] the United States, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, China, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and Germany.” Canada is not even in the top 10. Shame on us, that we would be so far down the list.

Let me suggest that the member go back to the drawing board, get his statistics right, and then come back to the House and start debating.

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, February 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, foreign investment, whether it is investments coming into Canada or Canadians investing abroad, can contribute markedly to our national prosperity. I have travelled all around the world promoting Canadian investment, because there was a time when Canada was a great place to invest. Sadly, over the last few years under the Liberal government there has been a decline in foreign investment. Why is foreign investment abandoning Canada? It is because of high taxes and regulatory uncertainty. This should concern all Canadians, because when foreign investment comes to Canada, for the most part it drives job creation if it is done right and contributes to our overall prosperity as a country.

However, as we welcome foreign investment into our country, we also have to be very judicious, making sure that those investments, first, represent a net benefit to Canadians and, second, do not represent a national security threat to our country. That is where the Investment Canada Act comes in. It was created to ensure that as foreigners invest in Canada, we have mechanisms and tools available to review those investments, to welcome those who are going to contribute to the overall good of the country and to reject those who are not good for our country.

The bill before us is seeking to introduce some amendments to the Investment Canada Act that purportedly will really improve the robustness of this regime. Unfortunately, if we dig down into the seven main amendments being proposed, they are mostly tinkering around the edges. Why do I say that? I do not believe they will markedly reduce the influence of foreign corporations and their ability to invest in Canada, especially when they come from increasingly hostile regimes around the world.

When we look around the world, I think all of us can agree that investments coming from a country like Russia require special diligence. Investments that come from places like Iran and China require a special degree of vigilance to make sure they serve our national interest. More and more often, we have seen under the Liberal government that investments have come from abroad from the more hostile regimes around the world, which engage in espionage and make investments that are not necessarily for the good of our country but promote a foreign country's economic interests. My colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge has already articulated some of the cases where the Minister of Industry has failed to subject investments to the kind of rigorous review that Canadians would expect of its government.

For example, we had a situation where an RCMP contract was awarded for the supply of sensitive hardware for communications to a company that had earlier been purchased by a China-based company beholden to the communist regime in Beijing. How can that be? It is because the minister refused to do a national security review of that foreign investment into Canada. It was also revealed that the Canada Border Services Agency has used communications equipment and technology from the same company.

Canadians need to know that this very same company was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States. Would we trust this company not to conduct espionage in our country? Of course not. The reality is that I could go through the same list of foreign transactions my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge listed, to which the minister refused to apply the kind of rigour to reviewing these foreign investments that Canadians would expect.

We also have to understand that the geopolitical and security landscape around the world has changed dramatically and the risks Canada faces are that much more acute. We look around the world at countries like China, Russia and Iran that are flexing their muscles economically and militarily in the field of cyber-espionage, and we are incredibly vulnerable, so we have to pay attention to this.

I would also mention that, as we look at investments from abroad, there are some who have said we should be very cautious about welcoming investments of state-owned enterprises from a country like China into our country because of the allegiance of those corporations to the communist regime in Beijing. However, the reality is that, not long ago, China passed a national intelligence law, under which all Chinese corporations and citizens, whether at home or abroad, are required to act as agents of the government and hand over any information the Chinese communist authorities demand.

Therefore, any company from that country, and any citizen from that country, is expected to be an agent of the government, so as we look abroad for investment, it behooves us, as legislators and decision-makers, to make sure we are prudent in whom we welcome to our country to invest.

The largest majority of investments come from countries we would gladly welcome investment from. Obviously, if the United States has a corporation that wants to invest in Canada, we would say we welcome that investment, generally speaking. If it is a huge investment, we may want to put a special spotlight on that investment to make sure there is a net economic benefit to Canada, but by and large, the investments we attract to Canada, we welcome.

As such, the Investment Canada Act is targeted and makes sure that the investments that are problematic are reviewed by our federal government. The legislation before us, unfortunately, had the opportunity to implement the nine recommendations an earlier report from the industry committee had brought forward. Sadly, only two of those recommendations have actually been adopted by the government in its amendments to the Investment Canada Act. What a lost opportunity.

We, as a country, can do so much better, and the reality is that we, as Conservatives, have long had a robust approach to foreign investment. When we were in government, we made major reforms to the Investment Canada Act. We said “no” to investments. We required a number of foreign investments to be qualified and conditional before they could be invested in Canada.

I have just outlined very briefly what it is we are debating here, the Investment Canada Act amendments. Let us make sure we get it right.

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, February 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about foreign investment, because as members may recall, in a past life in the Harper government, when we had a robust trade and investment agenda, I had the opportunity to be the trade minister. I travelled around the world to many different countries promoting Canadian investment. That is a two-way street, of course. We can talk about Canadians investing abroad, which we do, but there are also foreign companies—

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member quoted Milton Friedman. Of course, that member, being a member of the Liberal Party, is a great disciple of John Maynard Keynes, who used to promote spending as a way out of governments' problems and spending as a way of getting an economy back on track. Unfortunately, it is spending that has gotten our economy off track and into an inflationary spiral.

Will that member not admit that the spending his government undertook in Canada has driven inflation to 40-year highs and has caused the current unaffordability crisis in Canada? Will he now, at least, admit that?

[Medical Assistance in Dying, December 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the government legalized medical assistance in dying for adults who had an incurable illness that was irreversible and caused intolerable pain. Many of us warned that we were now on a slippery slope, which would lead to many others being offered assisted death. We were assured that assisted suicide would never be expanded, yet a short six years later, it is being offered to those who give mental illness as their sole reason for ending their lives, and there are plans to extend this scheme to minor children.

Now we are hearing terrible stories of veterans being encouraged to end their lives rather than receive the mental health supports they need. Assisted suicide is even being approved for those who cannot find adequate housing or have fallen through the cracks of our social support system. The government has moved too fast and too far. Life is a beautiful gift.

Before we move from a culture of life to a culture of death, let us reconsider the precarious path we are on and pause any further expansion of assisted death.

[Finance, December 5th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians face the worst affordability crisis in a generation, yet the government is only making things worse by spending $54 million on the ArriveCAN fiasco, $6,000 a night for the Prime Minister's luxury suite in London and $1 billion in wage subsidies to wealthy corporations. Liberal waste has become a national embarrassment, and every time the government borrows and spends on waste, life becomes more unaffordable for Canadians.

Will the government finally put an end to this inflationary spending, yes or no?

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to engage in this debate and to support this bill from my colleague, the member for Simcoe North. My colleague suggested that he is a rookie, but I think a lot of us know that he is one of the rising stars here on the Conservative side. He has brought forward a bill that is perhaps the first step in addressing the issue of money laundering. For me as a British Columbian and a member of Parliament from the west coast, it is especially important, because this is an issue that has now been thoroughly canvassed by the Cullen commission. I will get into that in a moment.

Money laundering is a very serious problem that deserves our serious attention. The amount of money that is laundered is in the many billions of dollars. Perhaps $100 billion a year is being laundered through casinos and real estate. It has a huge impact on Canadians. It has a huge impact on our prosperity and our lifestyles.

Money laundering is, at its very core, criminal. It is an activity firmly rooted in greed that has a complete disregard for the interests of others. Money laundering is deeply destructive to our communities and our families, and is thoroughly implicated in things like gun smuggling, drug trafficking and human trafficking. It goes on and on. Who suffers the most from money laundering? It is our communities and the most vulnerable members of our society, particularly those with addictions, mental health challenges and gambling addictions.

Money laundering is also implicated in much of the gun and gang violence we see across the country, including in my community of Abbotsford. It is an affront to every law-abiding citizen who earns their money honestly, pays their taxes and invests in their communities. It is essential that all of us, whether it is government, law enforcement or regulators, take strong and decisive action to fight this problem.

I mentioned that money laundering is an expensive business for Canadians. Billions of dollars are not being declared and are not being taxed, but are going into criminal activity. There is very little that has been done to address this problem so far.

A significant amount of money that is laundered ends up in our real estate market. I do not know if members understand that, or if Canadians understand that money laundering plays a significant role in the skyrocketing cost of real estate. It is not the only factor but it is one significant factor.

What happens is that these laundered funds end up in real estate and distort real estate prices, especially real estate prices close to major urban markets. Residents then have to seek lower housing costs by moving away from larger cities to communities such as Abbotsford, which in turn strains local real estate markets. Laundering money in Canada is therefore not a benign activity.

What are we supposed to do about it? So far, money laundering has not been addressed in a comprehensive way. The Cullen commission in British Columbia led to a damning report that concluded that billions of dollars per year were being laundered, and that was just in the province of B.C. alone. It called for sweeping changes. The commission found that this dirty money has been laundered through real estate, casinos and the purchase of luxury goods, for example, and Mr. Cullen made 101 recommendations.

To answer my colleague from the NDP, the soft-on-crime NDP, who said this bill is too narrow and too minor to support, I have never heard that argument made in the House before. I have never heard that a significant, narrow Criminal Code amendment could be too minor to support. Had my colleague from Simcoe North broadened this legislation, the NDP would not have supported it; we know that. The NDP is soft on crime. Canadians understand that.

The other thing is that we here on the Conservative side are the official opposition. We are not government. We are not the ones who are supposed to be bringing forward big bills to address the rising crime rate in Canada, especially when it comes to money laundering. That is the role of the Liberal government, which is being propped up by the NDP, who will not bring forward this kind of law or anything close to substantially addressing the issue of money laundering in Canada.

Let us talk about the recommendations the Cullen Commission made. Most of these recommendations are actually directed at the Province of British Columbia. When my NDP colleague says there are all these recommendations and this is not one of them, I can say that my colleague from Simcoe North did his research and his homework.

The bill before us, where individuals who lie to reporting authorities and organizations can go to jail for up to 10 years and can be fined a million dollars, is a big step. It is not a minor step. It is not a narrow step. It is a big step in the right direction. When I said, at the beginning of my remarks, that this is a step, someone has to take the first step. It is usually up to Conservatives to do that and that is what we are doing.

I am really saddened to see that the NDP has decided not to support the legislation. It is not about its merits. It is because it is too narrow. The NDP thinks it is too insignificant so it is going to push it aside and vote no. Canadians have to understand the perspective that the NDP comes from when it comes to addressing crime in Canada.

What are these recommendations that Justice Cullen made? There was a suggestion that there should be a dedicated provincial money laundering intelligence and investigation unit. It said the government should develop anti-money laundering guidance for financial institutions and the money service businesses that are often implicated in money laundering.

He recommended that a corporate beneficial ownership registry should be established, and we see that the Liberal government has now included that beneficial ownership registry in its budget. Has it been implemented, this public beneficial ownership registry? No. In fact, it said it will get it done by the end of 2023. Quite frankly, we could have an election by then. We all know that. By the end of 2023, we could have an election because the marriage between the NDP and the Liberals will likely break up before then. We will be in the middle of divorce proceedings between the two.

Another recommendation is that cryptocurrencies should be regulated because this is the next frontier in which money laundering will take place, if it is not taking place already. There was a recommendation that the threshold for requiring proof of the source of funds for casino transactions conducted in cash should be reduced. There is the suggestion that all cash transactions for the purchase and sale of luxury goods over $10,000 should be reported. There was also a suggestion that professional bodies like lawyers and accountants should be regulated more strictly.

These 101 recommendations, many of which were directed at the Province of British Columbia, provide us with a lot of fodder, a lot of support. At the end of the day, actually having some penalties, like prison time or massive fines, for those who lie to reporting authorities is a good step forward.

I thank my colleague from Simcoe North for bringing forward this very important bill.

[Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C‑31, October 18th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, what our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has been speaking about is inflation. He has been speaking about taxes. He has been speaking about the cost of living and affordability of housing, all of the things that matter to Canadians. That is what he has been speaking to in the House, and I have been here for every single meeting.

The biggest challenge facing Canada today is the affordability crisis, where Canadians are having to make the choice between groceries and putting fuel in their cars or between sending their kids to ballet lessons and paying for rent. Those are decisions we should never have to foist on Canadians, yet it is the Liberal government's irresponsible approach to borrowing and spending that has brought us to this point. As I mentioned earlier, we can do better.

[Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C‑31, October 18th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is that there absolutely were many businesses in my riding that benefited from the government's support programs. My focus was on the design of those programs, where there were also many businesses that did not need that support and some businesses that actually abused the programs because of their poor design.

The suggestion that somehow we as Conservatives do not want positive health outcomes is beneath a member of the House. We are all members of Parliament who represent our communities. The member suggests we somehow do not support positive health outcomes for Canadians. We have done this regularly to support Canadians in their time of need.

On the suggestion that the universality of our health care is somehow at stake, and we are challenging the universality of our health care system, show me evidence that we are doing that. Show me evidence. You have none.