SoVote

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Apr/5/22 4:53:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague is informed by my lived experience. I am proud to have served seven years now in our country's largest naval reserve division, and of my role in being appointed, as one of 14 individuals, by the Secretary General of NATO to advise on what the future of NATO and our alliance will look like. As the only Canadian, it did bring me quite a bit of sadness to see that we were not spending at 2%. Would you support the investment in an enhanced Arctic presence to fight for our Arctic sovereignty, to enhance our capabilities to defend that sovereignty and to modernize our submarine fleet?

115 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/5/22 4:54:14 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member needs to address all questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. I would like a brief answer from the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

36 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Apr/5/22 4:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, 100%. I am disappointed that we have to rely on our British allies, who are contacting us and saying that if we are having problems with Arctic sovereignty, they can help us and we can use their submarines. We should be upgrading our submarines. I see this as a good opportunity for Canada to speak with Australia, Britain and the United States and look at upgrading our submarine fleet so that we can actually have the capability to protect our northern waters.

85 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Apr/5/22 4:55:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important that I thank the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, and it is also important to read out what the motion is about. It states: That, given that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance has made an immeasurable contribution to peace, security, and prosperity for all its members, the House call on the government to increase spending on national defence to at least two per cent of Canada's gross domestic product, in accordance with NATO's 2014 Wales Summit Declaration. For the folks out there watching today wondering why we put the motion forward, it is because this simply was not getting done. I am going to focus my arguments on Arctic sovereignty and security. The reason I will do that is we need to understand in Canada that Putin has even made aggressive moves toward our own country. He has made claims to the Arctic seabed, which would add just under a million square kilometres to his existing claim. It is concerning to us as a nation, but it is especially concerning to our residents in the Arctic, and frankly to our allies as well. The threat is real. We have seen Putin deliver on that threat in Crimea and Ukraine, and he is very capable of delivering on it with others as well. I will start off my arguments with what the experts are saying. We hear rhetoric from the Liberals, but we also hear some good comments from members who have been on the committee for many years. They give an accurate assessment, and I commend them for that. I will start with my first article, “Canadian Forces in desperate need of new spending, procurement follow-through, experts say”. This is an article posted on April 2, 2022, which is very recent. Dave Perry, the president of the independent foreign policy and defence think tank, had these comments: Perry said the image of the military used to be one focused on peacekeeping, but the direction the Forces are supposed to take is less clear now. After that, Perry said the first step “would be for the government to actually make a decision about whether or not spending the money is a priority or not. I don't think there's been much evidence that it has been for this government.” All we are asking for this afternoon is to bring spending up to the 2% commitment, that promise, especially considering the threat is very real in our north, especially in the Arctic. It is one thing for us to have a rhetorical battle here in the House of Commons, but I am going to speak to what some leaders in the Arctic are saying about their concerns around their own security and sovereignty. This is in another recent article, from March 24, 2022: N.W.T. Premier Caroline Cochrane said Russia's aggressive actions should serve as a wake-up call to shore up safety and resiliency in the North. “Now with Russia invading Ukraine, it does show that we are vulnerable,” she said. “We need to make sure that we have the structures, the infrastructure in place, the services in place so that our people can not only thrive but that we can maintain Arctic sovereignty.” Here is a leader of one of our territories who is very concerned about this. I will go to a mayor in the Arctic as well, Clarence Wood, who is the mayor of Inuvik. The article notes: He says he's not worried for the safety of people living in Inuvik right now, but he also thinks locals would be “foolish not to be worried” about Arctic sovereignty, in light of current events. “Russia has ambitions,” he said. “They've always had ambitions in the Arctic, and with the expansion of their military to their Arctic regions, it puts us even closer. So, yeah, I'd say we have concerns. We have a very limited military presence. I don't think it would take the Russians very long to go through here if they put their mind to it.” Here again is a mayor on the front lines in the Arctic who has concerns and obviously represents the people of his region. I have heard this. I have been to several Arctic conferences, and a common comment I hear from residents is that this is their front yard and they are seeing a potential threat coming across the Arctic and the North Pole. I know time is limited and always is in this place, so I will speak to the motion and what is actually being done. I think 2% is an aspirational goal. Obviously it is something that has been aspired to by previous governments. It is one thing to aspire to it in word, but it is another to aspire to it in actual delivery. What I am getting at is that it is one thing to make big promises and say, “Hey, we are going to do this”, but then not deliver. An example of that would be in the estimates around Arctic sovereignty. We have seen comments from the government, again talking big. Speaking to what the member from Saskatchewan said before regarding accusing former prime minister Stephen Harper of talking to Putin and not having done anything, at least we had a prime minister who would stand up to him, and aggressively so. He understood the threats to Ukraine and other nations around Russia, and he spoke to Putin in a way that he needed to be spoken to. I think our country wishes our Prime Minister would do similarly, but that just is not happening. In getting back to the estimates, we looked at what the government is actually spending on this. We know the commitments of NORAD. We have heard from many experts that billions are necessary to upgrade our northern defence system. The government had only committed $163 million as of last year to even try to attempt to fix the system. General VanHerck, a leader of NORAD, as an example, has said that billions are necessary to upgrade the system in the north to get it to the standards of 2022 and beyond. To me, the government is just not delivering. I am going to speak to an article by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, entitled “On the Arctic Watch: Why we need to protect Canada’s sovereignty and security in the Far North.” The article states: The [Liberal] government, right before the 2021 federal election, issued a joint statement with the Biden administration on the need to modernize NORAD but there are no timelines, financial commitments, or shopping list of desired capabilities. The statement acknowledges Arctic geopolitical competition, the impact of climate change, and advances in conventional missile threats (e.g., Russian hypersonic missiles) and leaves it open to both parties on what those capabilities can be. The whole premise of why we are here tonight is that it is necessary but it is simply not being delivered. I think we could agree, probably members from both sides, that all we want to see is this stuff delivered. We want to see boats in water. We want to see defensive capabilities actually purchased and acquired and the procurement process fixed. I think we want to get this thing fixed. We do not want to just have an argument where we poke each other in the eye. We really do want to get this across the line. The budget is coming up this week. This is a call deliberately ahead of that, so that the Liberal government can make some good decisions and put that money into the budget. Our wish would be that it actually gets done.

1315 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Apr/5/22 5:03:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree almost entirely with the member's speech. I am also against eye-poking. Generally people end up blind when there is eye-poking, and in this particular file, it is not a good idea to be blind. The early warning system is massively expensive. It has also yet to be invented. Bits and pieces of it are invented. It is extremely difficult to see where this is going. I do know that this is going to cost literally billions of dollars. As General O’Shaughnessy would say, “I can't defend what I can't see.” I am asking the hon. member to cut the government a little slack on this. He should not be cutting the government a little slack on some of the other procurements though. I would be interested in his thoughts as to where we move first, because we need to up the game.

155 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Apr/5/22 5:04:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is that whole “fail to plan, plan to fail” analogy. However, I would say, even going back to former president Kennedy, there was not the infrastructure to go to the moon at the time when he made the call to say that they were going to get there, but he made the call to say that they were going to get there. I think we need to have the leadership, from the entire House, say that we need to get there. Let us find out what we need, in terms of procurement. I have heard, first-hand, the problems with some procurement, some of the never-ending plan changes, that a shipbuilder could never keep up with the changes from the bureaucracy and different ministries around that stuff. We need to set the course to get there and set a timeline to do it, rather than just pontificate in the clouds about some aspirational goal that we will get there someday. We need to set a timeline, back it up with the funds that are expected, that 2% being part of that, and then we will get there.

193 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Apr/5/22 5:05:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although I agree with the substance of the motion, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the motion itself. It talks about increasing spending. We have been here for weeks, and I have heard my Conservative friends criticize the government for spending too much. If we were to increase military spending from 1.37% to 2% of GDP, that would represent $16 billion in additional annual spending at a time when we need to help seniors, increase health transfers and invest in housing. Where will this money come from? Money does not grow on trees. My question is simple: Must we choose between social housing and tanks?

108 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Apr/5/22 5:06:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, money does not grow on trees in Quebec, nor does it anywhere else in our country, or anywhere for that matter. We know it is a very expensive endeavour to do this, but it is an accurate response. Indeed, the government is spending a lot of money, but is it spending it in the right direction? That is a huge question mark. We would disagree on how the government is spending money. It is one thing to throw money at a problem. However, to do it in the proper way to get things done, that needs to be done efficiently with the proper procurement process, with the right targets set and the right timelines. That is where we differ from the government across the way.

127 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Apr/5/22 5:07:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, following up in that vein, last week we were debating a Conservative motion that called for no new taxes and a return to balance. Today, we are talking about a motion that would represent about $30 billion, give or take, in new spending. I am just wondering about what we often hear from Conservatives. I know the member is saying we would spend differently, but where is the $30 billion of spending that he thinks ought to be cut in order to make room for these priorities? While I am on my feet, I would mention that I was part of a foreign affairs study in 2019 of Canadian sovereignty in the north. I know some members are looking for examples of where New Democrats think we could spend in military spending. That report, which was a unanimous report, is a great place to start.

147 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Apr/5/22 5:08:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have read that report. It is 28 recommendations, and it is a great report and a place to start and really build our defences. I will go back. The NDP premise today has been all about priorities for money and other things that are important. I do agree with the member that things are important, but if we cannot defend our own borders and our own country and our own people and, where premiers are asking to be defended in the north if we cannot do that to start, then I do not know where we will be if somebody else decides to set up their shop on our shores. I would say that is where we need to spend the money.

125 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/5/22 5:08:50 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. I apologize, but I am going to have to cut the length of the member's speech. He has seven minutes to deliver his speech. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

35 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Apr/5/22 5:09:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Talleyrand, a diplomat whom I admire, always said that if it goes without saying, then it will go even better if we say it. Let us say what must be said. I am pleased to rise to speak today on this Conservative opposition day. Knowing that the devil is in the details, I want to take this opportunity to try to better understand this proposal which, while it seems valid, does require some reflection. Unlike being a member of your local book club, NATO membership brings with it certain obligations. One such obligation is that member states allocate 2% of their GDP to defence-related expenditures. This 2% is a figure, a symbol. I know the Liberals are fond of symbols. In fact, it seems to me that the Liberal government is a little too focused on images, on symbols and on promises that are all too often meaningless. Meaning is the way. It is the path. It provides direction. Without meaning, we go astray. As we have learned over the past few years, Canada has gone astray in terms of foreign affairs and national defence. It is hard to believe, but just four of the NATO member countries spend less than Canada on defence. As Canada, with its jet-set diplomacy, travels the world lecturing everyone about Ukraine, it spends less than Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and Slovenia. Yes, Slovenia. That is shameful. Slovenia's biggest resource is comedians. Gaspard Proust, a worthy successor of Pierre Desproges and master of irony, loves to say to whoever will listen, “I'm a disillusioned Cartesian. I think, therefore I am, but I don't give a damn.” Canada does not seem to give a damn about its defence policy. Beyond the symbolism, let us talk about what it all means. What will Canada do if it decides to spend 2% of its GDP, as required by NATO? Will Canada do that just to say that it did it? Will Canada do it just to look good, for its image, to contribute to world peace? Why will it do so? Spending is one thing. Making good spending choices is another. We know the Liberal government loves to spend, but making an effective contribution to global peace is a different story. Right now, the Canadian Armed Forces have a serious personnel issue. Let us talk about recruitment. The government is having a hard time recruiting new soldiers. The Canadian Forces were hoping to recruit almost 6,800 people last year, but they got only 2,800. The forces themselves admitted that that was not even close to the target, which was impossible to achieve. Even though the ads suggest excitement with that “There's no life like it” slogan, it is clear that major operations are few. Instead it is mostly training, training and more training, which can be discouraging for people who are looking to make a real contribution. Recruitment does not deliver on its promises. Right now, equipment is going unused because there are no people to use it. The labour shortage is affecting the armed forces too. Let us talk about retention. In 2018, the Auditor General released a report stating that the Air Force had only 64% of the qualified pilots needed for operations and that 22% of technician positions were vacant. The Navy has ships, but few sailors. Without more sailors, the existing personnel are overworked, and this leads to exhaustion and disinterest. The lack of workability, the lack of excitement in the training operations I mentioned earlier, such as Operation Presence and Operation Reassurance, is disturbing. This does not speak to the “There's no life like it!” challenge. It does not help motivation. Soldiers undergo six months of intensive training to go and do what? To train even more, except somewhere else. That is not very interesting. The situation is even worse for reservists, who have fewer opportunities to deploy. They are being asked to leave their civilian jobs to join the forces, with no guarantee of deployment afterwards. Let us not forget the pandemic. Courses were cancelled. Training was done online. Soldiers had to isolate. There was nothing to motivate anyone. There was also a lack of proper leadership. Possible solutions do exist. The deployment system must be reformed. We have been saying this for many years, but it must be done. We also have to do more to help forces members get settled and housed. The cost of homes, as we hear every day in the House, is skyrocketing, even for the military. Inflation is affecting our soldiers. We must also give francophones—and this is very important to the Bloc Québécois—the opportunity to stay in francophone communities. Sending Quebeckers to anglophone provinces is a growing source of hardship for a family that does not necessarily speak the language and will suddenly have to learn to live in English. Many francophone parents end up choosing to educate their children in English instead of French, which we think is a shame. I will sum up. As we can see, spending without ensuring that there is a solid foundation, without first ensuring that there are pilots in the planes, is reckless, to say the least. I could not leave here today without making reference to a NATO exercise called Cold Response that is under way in Norway. More than 30,000 soldiers are participating in this operation, including 10 Canadians. Just imagine the size. The Bloc Québécois will support the Conservatives' motion while remaining wary of the Liberal government, which puts empty words ahead of meaningful action. I invite the Liberal government to stop repeating its “we are there, we were there” mantra. Instead it should do something meaningful to keep the Canadian Armed Forces off the list of delinquent NATO members.

986 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/5/22 5:15:52 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

95 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Apr/5/22 5:16:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/5/22 5:16:53 p.m.
Watch

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Apr/5/22 5:17:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am going to attempt time travel again. It is improbable for a place like this, but if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30.

44 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/5/22 5:17:26 p.m.
Watch

Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

46 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Apr/5/22 5:18:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-249

moved that Bill C-249, An Act respecting the encouragement of the growth of the cryptoasset sector, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-249, the encouraging growth of the cryptoasset sector act. It has been 14 years since work conducted by Stuart Haber, W. Scott Stornetta, and Dave Bayer was used by a person operating under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto to launch a concept called blockchain. Since the Nakamoto paper was published, the concepts it contained have been operationalized the world over to launch a pantheon of innovative products and practices that are revolutionizing how people interact and transact with each other. Canada’s Parliament has yet to debate the cryptoasset sector. This debate today marks the first time we are doing so. I am going to break down the public policy challenge before us today in six parts. They are what cryptoassets are, why the sector is important to Canada, why Parliament needs to turn its attention to the sector, why this bill is the best approach for Parliament to take in the matter, problems this approach will prevent, and my desired approach to building consensus for this model. Let us talk about the first point. What are cryptoassets? Within my bill and within my speech today, I use the term “cryptoasset” and define it as, “digital assets that are secured by means of cryptographic systems, including the blockchain system, that do not rely on a central authority and are based on algorithms agreed to by the majority of users.” Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, are one type of cryptoasset. Transactions use blockchain to record transactions and issue new units, as opposed to fiat currencies that have a central issuing or regulating authority. Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are another cryptoasset. NFTs are digital assets that represent real-world objects such as art, music, in-game items and videos. They are bought and sold online, frequently with cryptocurrency, and they are generally encoded with the same underlying software as many cryptos. Rather than spend the limited time I have today breaking down the technical aspects of how cryptoassets operate, I encourage colleagues who are not familiar with the subjects to spend some time watching the multitude of videos, reading the articles and looking at the other educational resources that are now available. I will highlight, however, that a lack of education on the topic among legislators and public servants is a problem that my bill attempts to resolve. The goal of this would be to have public policy happen in an environment based on knowledge and public consultation, rather than polarized partisan interests. Why is the sector important to Canada? First, cryptoassets represent an important sector that could help to diversify and grow the Canadian economy. To give colleagues a sense of the size of this industry, one recent report suggests that the global cryptocurrency market reached a value of $1.782 billion U.S. in 2021. Looking forward, the publisher of this report expects the market to reach $32.4 billion U.S. by 2027, exhibiting a compound annual growth rate of 58.4% from 2022-27. The global market for another type of cryptoasset, non-fungible tokens, is expected to grow from $14 billion in 2021 to $21.3 billion in 2022 at a compound annual growth rate of 52.1%. The market is expected to reach $82 billion in 2026 at a compound annual growth rate of 40.2%. Canada should be a natural home for this type of innovation and investment. Many view the decentralized nature of cryptoassets as an attractive feature in and of itself. By removing intermediaries from computer networks, distributed ledgers can facilitate new types of economic opportunities that were not possible before. The blockchain technology underlying Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has been hailed as a potential game-changer for a large number of industries. Another common reason for investing in cryptoassets is the desire for a reliable, long-term store of value. This property makes cryptocurrency attractive to people who are worried about things such as bank failures, or so some rationale goes. This brings us to why Parliament needs to turn its attention to the sector. As with any industry, there are massive potential benefits to Canada, as well as potential pitfalls. The call to us, as legislators, should be to find a path that promotes growth and investment in the sector within Canada, while protecting those working in the space, as well as consumers. Many innovators and proponents of cryptoassets in Canada are actually calling for the federal government to use its convening power to provide policy clarity to the industry. The current lack of clarity, particularly on safeguards to protect those working in the space, is seen as an impediment to investment. That is to say, who would invest in a sector that is likely to be regulated at any time, but likely by people who know little to nothing about how the industry operates? The same could be said for government investment in the sector. Further, a significant amount of jurisdiction for policy related to the sector falls to the provinces. A patchwork of rules and regulations is popping up across Canada. Provincial jurisdiction must be respected, but the federal government could have a role to play in convening provinces to establish an opt-in set of harmonized policies that would make it easier for investors to operate and to provide safeguards. At the same time, given the newness of the sector and its rapid pace of growth and innovation, there are risks. Education to help investors evaluate risk could benefit the sector. Specifically, a broader public understanding of what is real and what is speculative mania, what is protected by government regulation and what is not, how to prevent digital asset theft, and how cryptoasset volatility occurs, could benefit the sector, as could safeguards that are present for other asset classes such as traditional securities to prevent fraud and illegal activities. High profile instances of alleged fraud, such as the QuadrigaCX scandal, which many Canadians will be learning about via the Netflix film on the topic this week, underscore the need for what we are discussing today. Our Parliament should also be seized with this issue because other jurisdictions are well ahead of us on this matter. If we continue to lag in setting a framework for Canada, this will become an impediment in future negotiations regarding trade and will drive talent and capital away from Canada to other jurisdictions with more robust frameworks. For example, the European Union has recently introduced its proposal for a new EU law on cryptoassets under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. The European Blockchain Partnership is also planning a pan-European regulatory sandbox in co-operation with the European Commission for data portability, business-to-business data spaces, smart contracts and digital identity. This will cover sectors including health, the environment, mobility, energy and more. Last month, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing his federal government to come up with a cryptocurrency plan. The order will coordinate efforts among financial regulators to better understand the risks and opportunities presented by digital assets, particularly in the areas of consumer protection, national security and illicit finance. The Biden administration stated that this was in response to the explosive growth in digital assets and a desire to maintain American technological leadership. The results could shape the contours of a rapidly innovating industry, yet Canada has not moved forward in this regard. At the same time, the innovative functions of blockchain technologies and the decentralized essence of how they function should not be hampered by a lack of clarity or knee-jerk reactions from legislators. Those who believe that cryptoassets are the means to all sorts of evils are missing the point as much as those who might profess that cryptoassets without any attached policy are the magic wand for all our ills. This is exactly what is happening here in Canada. The political debate on cryptoassets is becoming polarized before we even begin to discuss it in this place. Some in Canada are advocating for policies that would lead to bans of many types of cryptoassets, which would be a colossal blow to a potential enormous economic boon for our country. On the other hand, some are openly advising the public that cryptocurrencies, which are volatile, currently subject to an enormous amount of regulatory uncertainty and untested as an inflationary hedge against periods of sustained high inflation, are good ways to solve Canada’s inflationary problem. Rather than go down the path of reactionary populism or highly damaging knee-jerk over-regulation, we should choose a better way. That brings me to what my bill would do. The bill would require the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework for the cryptoasset sector and, in developing the framework, to consult with persons working in the sector who are designated by provinces and territories. It would require the Minister of Finance to formally ensure that cryptoasset experts are leading voices in the policy development process. It would also be open to public submissions. Given the newness of the sector, the bill would also enshrine consultation of innovators who work in the space, while asking those who traditionally have primary access to the finance minister on such matters, such as lobbyists and public servants, to engage via their traditional access routes so that a fulsome position on what the government should or should not do is developed. It would enshrine provincial jurisdiction by ensuring that any framework would be on an opt-in-only basis for the provinces, and would require the Minister of Finance to ask the provinces for input during the consultation process. This would prevent policy from happening behind closed doors in the federal government without more open consultation. The bill takes an optimistic view of the sector, rather than pessimistic. That is, it could be an important part of the Canadian economy. Other, more pessimistic views that have been used in other jurisdictions have functionally kneecapped the space to the detriment of those nation’s economies. The bill would ask the minister to ensure Canada remains an attractive place to attract and retain investment and talent, while protecting those who work with cryptoassets. Most importantly, rather than prescribing any particular policy, the bill would create a mechanism to formally engage the expertise of cryptoasset talent in policy development. It would require the framework to be reviewed by committees of the House and the Senate, and it would require this work to be done within a three-year period. My rationale for putting this bill forward is to depoliticize what is becoming a polarized discussion of the space and to open the policy process to those innovators who need us to support them but also not set unnecessary roadblocks that would stand in their way. I am hoping that, if this bill passes, innovators, provinces and those interested in cryptoassets will have a clear and productive mechanism to work with the federal government to drive common-sense public policy that will see Canada become a world leader in this space. Many innovators, cryptoasset practitioners, bankers, lawyers and members of the general public have expressed great excitement about this open and novel approach to setting public policy for the cryptoasset sector. In fact, I have had legislators from other jurisdictions around the world look at this as a novel approach to tone down the rhetoric on the subject and actually do something that resembles work, which could hopefully be duplicated on a larger scale. One particular example that I would like to highlight, with regard to feedback, is from Morva Rohani, the executive director of the Canadian Web3 Council. She says, “Bill C-249 has launched a long overdue public policy discussion on the benefits of cryptocurrencies in Canada. The Canadian Web3 Council is supportive of the development of a national framework to encourage the growth of the cryptocurrency sector in consultation with the industry.” I hope that this bill will give an opportunity for colleagues of all political stripes to educate themselves on cryptoassets and to develop their party’s particular policy stances on the challenges and opportunities the sector presents to our country from a place of knowledge and sound judgment, rather than populism or knee-jerk reactions to regulate away anything new. To that end, I want to state to all members of the House that I am open to amendments to this bill. I tried to present a framework that could be rigorously reviewed by the finance committee members and witnesses, with constructive amendments to be made on the scope or content provided. If a colleague wants the bill to do more, I encourage them to take it to committee and to amend it. I hope that colleagues will evaluate this bill in the spirit that it is intended to evoke in the House, and that is a supportive, cross-partisan approach to nurturing a nascent and highly important innovative economic opportunity for our country.

2214 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Apr/5/22 5:31:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-249

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for bringing this important discussion to the House. She articulated in her speech how we really do need to have important conversations about cryptocurrency in the future and how it works. Again, in that spirit of trying to be not partisan, I have read through the bill. I think, by and large, the framework and the idea of forcing those conversations and making sure that we are addressing, as legislators and as lawmakers, how we position this industry in the days ahead is really important. I looked at subclause 3(1), in terms of the fact that the framework is to “encourage the growth” of the sector. I may agree with that. I certainly have to get my own head wrapped around it, and this will be an important discussion about where I stand on this issue. Would the member be open to an amendment around, as opposed to saying pro-growth in this sector, at least exploring ways on the administrative burden? She mentioned about not trying to be too partisan one way or the other. Would she address that point on the language and whether we can have something perhaps a little more neutral in saying how best to move forward with the sector writ large?

222 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Apr/5/22 5:32:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-249

Madam Speaker, I look forward to debate on the topic. I would say that the industry is a way to diversify Canada's primarily natural resource-based economy, something that the government has stated it desires to do. I would like to hear from the government or government members, even off-line, why “growth” would be a problematic word in this context. I do not think that growth is necessarily incongruent with the need to look at some of the safeguards to protect those who are working in the space but, again, if the bill gets to committee, I really hope that the question the member asked is what is asked to witnesses and is what is discussed among other committee members, so that what comes out of Parliament is something that sends a signal to industry that Canada gets this. We want to see growth in innovative new sectors. At the same time, we also want to address public policy challenges that have been brought to the forefront without, as some jurisdictions have said, legislating away any potential economic opportunity.

183 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 53