SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/25/22 12:00:07 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will be able to continue the next time this matter is before the House. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

46 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood

Apr/25/22 12:00:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would like to inform the House that the remaining Conservative caucus speaking times are hereby divided in two.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/25/22 12:00:53 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the notification.

4 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Apr/25/22 12:01:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning. Much to the chagrin of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I am pleased to hear that the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is ensuring as many Conservatives as possible will be able to speak to the hardships Canadians are going to experience because of the Liberal-NDP budget tabled just two weeks ago. Canadians need a break, and they need relief from the growing affordability crisis, a crisis the government has presided over and has contributed to with its failed policies. What were Canadians looking for when the finance minister and the Prime Minister delivered the budget? They wanted controlled spending. They have had to rein spending in at home, and they expected the government to do the same. Of course, they needed tax breaks. We are seeing the price of everything go up, such as gas to fill up our cars to get to medical appointments, go to work or take our kids to a recreational activity. We are seeing the price of home heating go up. We live in one of the world's coldest climates, but the price to heat our homes continues to go up and up. Canadians want meaningful action on housing inflation. We have seen the price of a home in Canada more than double during the government's mandate. Over the last six years, in spite of promises made by the government when it first was seeking government in 2015, Canadians are worse off than they were at that time. Whether they are seniors, young people, new Canadians or families, they would be crushed by the avalanche of uncontrolled spending that has been promised in the shadow of a deal between the Liberals and the New Democrats. This is all while the government had a unique opportunity. The conditions they contributed to allowed for the government to be the beneficiary of a windfall on the backs of the very Canadians who are suffering. We saw government revenues climb by $24 billion over what the finance minister had projected in her fall economic update. There was an opportunity. The government did not take that opportunity to give Canadians a break with the carbon tax on April 1, a tax that does nothing to reduce emissions but does everything to hurt families, seniors and young people. It did not take that opportunity. We also know Canadians are having a really tough time dealing with the conditions that persisted and existed before COVID-19, which were exacerbated by COVID-19, in our health care system. The government had an opportunity to use this budget to increase capacity and address backlogs in our health care system, but the government is would add to the burdens on our health care system by launching new programs amid what is well known to be a human resource crisis in our health care system. These commitments the government has made, which were not done in consultation with the provinces, and which have expressly been called by the provinces as unwelcome, would have a negative impact on people's quality of care, their quality of life and, in fact, on the outcomes they would have for otherwise treatable and curable illnesses. It is also going to have great harm on an area we have seen across the country and in all of our communities. All members in the House can attest to the impacts COVID-19 has had on the mental health of Canadians. It is irresponsible for the government to prioritize its deal to cement its power and to further consolidate power in the Prime Minister's Office. Its deal with the NDP is now going to allow the government to do that, but it is done at the expense of addressing the health care needs of the provinces and territories. It is critical the government work with the provinces and territories on improving health care, which would require the Prime Minister to show the leadership of having those conversations with the premiers. We have a budget coming out of COVID-19, and the Prime Minister said that he would not talk about health care with the provinces until he effectively decided that COVID was over. It is unbelievable, with all of the challenges. We can talk about the effects of missed and delayed care appointments, and the treatment and surgical backlogs that have been exacerbated. We saw a health care hallway across our country well before COVID-19, and at a time when it is being most acutely felt, we have a Prime Minister saying that we will talk about it after the health care crisis that we are currently experiencing. That is not the collaboration or the leadership that Canadians need. That is certainly not what the provinces have been calling for, which is leadership. The health care system is cash-strapped and resource-strapped, but now we have these programs that were decided by the fourth party in the election. It has dictated to the minority government how it is going to address the health care system. It is not with solutions; it is with further burdens. The Liberal government, the Prime Minister and their partner with the leader of the NDP should talk to the provinces about predictable and stable health care transfers so they can plan what that looks like. Any increases they are seeing right now were planned by and decided by the Conservative government before they came to office. They have not made any improvements on that. In fact, they derided that formula, but it is the one they are sticking to. It makes me wonder what the Liberals really put on offer when they go to an election. They run down what the Conservatives had executed, which is a health care funding formula that was executed before 2015, and they continue it through a pandemic six years later. Then they pick up the ball from the NDP and jam those promises down the provinces' throats when they were just looking to talk about what has changed in the system over the five years they had been in office. It is really confusing. They said they would not stick with what the Conservatives offered, but instead they kept that and added what the NDP wanted. I guess the Liberals are setting the stage for the next election or this budget vote to be one of deciding if Canadians want to vote for the NDP or the Conservatives. Well, I have to tell members that we will work with the provinces. We will give Canadians a break. We are not going to further burden Canadians, at a time when they can afford it the least, in all of the areas that I mentioned previously, which are about basic affordability. When I talk about this, the government members will stand up and say that supply chain issues are a global phenomenon. They will stand up and tell us to compare our debt-to-GDP ratio with that of other countries around the world. However, whether we are in Eureka, Nunavut, Victoria-by-the-Sea, Prince Edward Island, Victoria, British Columbia, or any point in between, that is just word salad. It does not mean anything to Canadians who cannot afford the basic necessities of life. We have people in communities across the country and in my community who have to make the choice between heating their home and feeding their family, heating or eating, at a time when we are having a conversation about bringing more people to our great country to enjoy the beauty and bounty that this country has to offer. We better make sure there are no claims of false advertising brought by the folks we are trying to attract here. It is going to be tough sledding. It is going to be tough sledding when they get here and find things out. Welcome to Canada, and if they want to own a home, they just need $850,000 to get started. Yikes. Once they do, good luck heating the place. If they can afford to heat it, the price of groceries this year is going to go up by a minimum of $1,000 per family. Also, the price at the pump will only increase under failed policies that the government continues to double down on. Canadians needed a break from the government. They needed leadership on health care. They have neither, so the Conservatives, the official opposition, have tremendous concern and will continue to fight for Canadians.

1431 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/25/22 12:11:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has selective memory when it comes to health care. He is really off base. When we think about it, Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing. He did not negotiate with the provinces and, in fact, let the Canada health care accord retire. There were no negotiations at all. One of the first things we did when we came into government was negotiate individual health care accords with the provinces. Today we have record amounts in health care transfers going to the provinces, but that is not enough. We have recognized the importance of mental health, long-term care and the cost of drugs for Canadians. We are prepared and willing to do more, and our consecutive budgets have demonstrated that. How could the member, after reflecting on the last number of years, possibly give the speech he has just given when in fact things are quite the opposite? This is a government that cares for Canadians and the health of Canadians, and it is demonstrated in every budget, including this budget.

174 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Apr/25/22 12:12:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that we have woken government members and have excited them early on a Monday, but my goodness, I sincerely hope, genuinely, that the member, his constituents and all members and their constituents do not have to experience the hardships that exist in our health care system because of the government's inactions. Unfortunately, those who are dealing with the health care system today are dealing with the realities that my hon. friend is trying to spin. Our health care system is in crisis. We have a health care human resource crisis, and the government failed to address it in this budget.

108 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Apr/25/22 12:13:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the whole issue of health transfers was discussed earlier in the debate on a motion. As we know, in the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government funded 50% of health care spending. That funding was cut repeatedly, and now the feds fund only about 22% through health transfers. The Quebec government and all Canadian provinces are calling for an increase in these health transfers. Unfortunately, this budget does not include any such measures. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

86 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Apr/25/22 12:13:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the premier of the member's province expressed great concern, to put it mildly, with the federal government's approach to dealing with the provinces. I am paraphrasing, but I believe it was characterized as a war on the provinces. That is incredibly concerning. This goes back to the Prime Minister saying that he will not work with the provinces on health care funding until after the pandemic. We are going to have live with COVID-19 for a long time and will have to adapt to that, and the Prime Minister will need to adapt his approach for dealing with this. He needs to collaborate with the provinces, as health care is their jurisdiction. I know that is sometimes complicated for the government to understand, but health care is a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government needs to work with them to ensure that it is properly funded, not dictate to them on how it is executed.

160 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/25/22 12:15:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always find the member eloquent and enjoy working with him, but I have some questions. First, during the dismal decade that was the Harper government, there was an average, under the PBO, of $25 billion in money that went to overseas tax havens. He has expressed concern about the deficit, but over that dismal decade, a quarter of a trillion dollars, or $250 billion, went to overseas tax havens, and the Conservatives had put in place initiatives to continue that practice. As we know, health care was cut back in that dismal decade. How could the member defend the record of his former government?

107 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Apr/25/22 12:15:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is really important in 2022 that we look to the results of the government, which the member's party has just decided to keep in power regardless of its failures for Canadians, who are struggling with an affordability crisis. The member has identified issues that are of great importance to the people who elected him to this place. Some people in my constituency explained that they were concerned about some of those issues. The government has abandoned that ground, and I would encourage the member opposite to prod the government to give some meaningful help to Canadians, instead of having this avalanche of spending.

107 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Apr/25/22 12:16:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I start today, I would like to wish our Orthodox community a happy Easter. Today, I will be addressing the Liberal government's recently proposed federal budget for 2022. The budget presented an opportunity for real action on serious issues facing Canadians when our country is in desperate need of prudent financial planning. The cost of living is sky rocketing, the housing market remains out of reach for families, and vulnerable Canadians are in serious need of support. In the community of King, home prices from February 2020 to February 2022 have increased by 142%. In Vaughan, prices increased by 57%. My community of King—Vaughan has become unattainable. The Liberal tax-free savings plan is not going to benefit first-time homebuyers with the rising cost of homes, and the Liberal finance minister has proposed a strategy described by Scotiabank's economic director as “spend, tax and pray”. With the new NDP-Liberal coalition, Canada expects a $52.8-billion deficit for the coming fiscal year, and the finance minister apparently has no plans to balance the books until 2027. This comes as no surprise. With the Liberals in power, we have grown to count on excessive debt and the instability that comes with it. Having to appease the NDP, fiscal responsibility has gone out the window, further fuelling the affordability crisis. Only a few short years ago, the Prime Minister was praising the value of balanced budgets. Who would have thought the Prime Minister would return to his old ways of thinking and would favour budgets that do not balance themselves? The central bank has started lifting its benchmark interest rate to combat record inflation exacerbated by the Liberals' financial incompetence. Although the increase in rates will help slow inflation, it has already hiked the cost of paying off the enormous debt we have accumulated. We are presently paying over $2 billion each month to service the national debt, and this burden will continue to expand with each hike. Higher liability payments will make it more difficult for the federal government to weather new storms, follow through on promises and invest in Canadians. If the bank continues increasing rates above 2.5% as some predict, families that recently secured a variable-rate mortgage could see their payments increase by over 30%. The Liberals have been promising since 2015 to make housing prices more affordable, but the average house price has doubled since they took office. More expensive mortgages will not help anybody afford a new home, and the Liberals' plan of a new tax-free first home savings account will not assist Canadians with achieving their dream. This NDP-Liberal budget also failed to address the needs of our seniors. Seniors 75 and older recently received a one-time $500 payment as part of the Liberals' election strategy campaign. A question remains, though: Why were seniors aged 65 to 74 excluded from this benefit? Seniors who planned on retiring now may be forced to continue working as the cost of living makes the prospect of retirement unattainable. Our seniors have contributed to our economy their entire lives and are now faced with the tough choices of their next employment opportunities in an effort to combat the cost of living. As the primary health care providers, the provinces have asked the federal government for an additional $28 billion in health transfer payments, but this was not included in the budget. Instead of more money for hospitals and nurses to help care for our elderly parents and our children with disabilities, there is no option available to them once their parents are no longer able to care for them. The Liberals are caving in to the NDP's outrageous multi-billion dollar dental proposal. Dental care is under provincial jurisdiction, but not one province has asked for the federal dental care program, including the NDP in British Columbia. In addition to physical health, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a massive toll on the mental health and well-being of millions of Canadians. I have personally spoken with parents of children with disabilities who say they are in dire need of support. On top of letting down adults with disabilities by failing on their promises to reintroduce a disability benefit, the Liberals are failing to address the needs of children with special needs. Although funding for mental health support is being expanded in general, the Liberals are seriously missing the mark when it comes to caring for the physical needs of our country's most vulnerable. Finally, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada will be the worst-performing G7 country over the next 40 years. Based on this estimate, young Canadians entering the workforce today should expect to spend the majority of their working life in the slowest-growing economy. Is this the expectation we now have of our federal government? Conservatives understand this is shocking, depressing and utterly unacceptable for the resource-rich nation we call home. The Liberals and their NDP colleagues are squandering our hard work and our children's future, as there is no serious plan for long-term growth in this budget. Conservatives will stand up for Canadians who want a better future, as the government's budget is not the best road ahead for our country.

893 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/25/22 12:24:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe budget 2022-23 provides a great deal of hope for Canadians. I say that because, even when we take a look at what the member was talking about, a good portion of her time was spent on housing. I think we need to recognize that the federal government has put into place a number of initiatives to assist Canadians in being able to afford a home, but it is not just the federal government alone, and that is my question for the member. Would she not agree that the only way we can deal with the issue of housing is to incorporate municipalities, for example the zoning requirements and the bureaucracy that is involved in that? Provincial governments provide literally tens of thousands of units in my own home province of Manitoba. It is going to require governments of all levels to start working more closely together to ensure that Canadians will be able to have affordability. As a national government, we are demonstrating our leadership on that file.

178 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

Apr/25/22 12:25:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before we broke I was able to take a look at the tax-free savings home plan. It does not work. If we take it in today's dollars, using the same example as in the budget, a young couple earning $90,000 will be able to afford a house at $355,000. I do not know where they are going to find a house in my riding for that money, let alone in Ontario. If we take that same example for 2027, they will be able to afford a house worth $500,000, hoping that interest rates stay the same. One cannot buy a house for $500,000, so how is this plan going to help first-time homebuyers? I do not see it.

127 words

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

Apr/25/22 12:26:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of talk about housing in the budget. I think that is to be commended, because there are some significant investments in there. The government is talking about doubling the number of housing units built in Canada from 100,000 to 200,000. However, it is not clear where they got this 100,000 figure from, since the National Housing Council said in a study two months ago that only 35,000 units had been built since 2017, the year the national housing strategy was launched. In this budget, the government is revamping two housing construction programs: the rental construction financing initiative and the national housing co-investment fund. These are not bad programs, but they are known for producing housing that is not particularly affordable. The government may say that it is going to build housing, but unfortunately, what is in the budget will not make it any more affordable. What does my colleague think?

161 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

Apr/25/22 12:27:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did some digging and found that in the GTA, out of seven areas, including Peel, Toronto, York, Halton, Durham, Simcoe and Dufferin County, which are considered part of the GTA, every single area has gone up. Some areas have gone up as high as 130%, such as Brock; some areas have gone up 142%, such as King. The plan the Liberals have in place will not assist the cost of housing. When we talk to developers, it is the red tape. We need to make a plan that will help the developers ensure that the housing costs are reduced for everyone.

104 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/25/22 12:28:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the World Economic Forum is the favourite conspiracy hub of the Conservative backbench. Do members remember when Stephen Harper used to go every year to the World Economic Forum? He would bring Bev Oda, Tony Clement, James Moore and Joe Oliver. They would all go over to Davos, and that is where Stephen Harper made the announcement that they were raising the age for pensions. They were getting rid of the age for pensions and cutting off seniors in Canada. They did not do it in Canada for seniors; they went over to talk to the elite in Davos at the World Economic Forum. I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. Why is it that the last time the Conservatives were in government they were hanging out at the World Economic Forum, cutting seniors off at age 65 from their rights, and telling that to the billionaire class at Davos?

154 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

Apr/25/22 12:29:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate the fact that the Liberals gave a one-time payment of $500 to seniors, some of whom did not require it, instead of investigating who were the most vulnerable. That should have been the reason for giving the $500, to ensure that the most vulnerable have the money to survive.

57 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/25/22 12:29:31 p.m.
Watch

I would remind members that once they pose their questions, they need to allow the other parliamentarian to answer. I know we have been away for two weeks in our constituencies and we may forget the rules. I have noticed that a few times today, and I want to remind members that everyone who is elected to the House is able to answer questions, because they would not have been elected if they were not able to, and when someone has the floor the other individuals have to give them the respect of the House. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nepean.

102 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Apr/25/22 12:30:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. I would like to focus my talk on the following important items in the budget. The first is Canada's critical minerals and clean industrial strategies. In my view, this is, at the same time, the biggest opportunity and the most critical need for Canada today. Daniel Yergin is an economic historian and writer about whom Time magazine said, “If there's one man whose opinion matters more than any other on global energy markets, it's Daniel Yergin.” Mr. Yergin said in his latest book, “You're creating whole new supply chains that don't exist, and you're trying to do it in a very fast time. That means transitioning from Big Oil to Big Shovel.” The second is launching a world-leading Canada growth fund with $15 billion, which will help attract $45 billion in private capital. We need to transform our economy at speed and at scale. The third is creating a Canadian innovation and investment agency, a market-oriented agency, one with private sector leadership and expertise similar to those that have helped countries like Finland and Israel transform themselves into global innovation leaders. The fourth is the review of tax support to R and D. The decades-old scientific research and experimental development program has been a cornerstone of Canada's innovation strategy, which provides tax incentives to encourage Canadian businesses of all sizes in all sectors to conduct R and D. The fifth is cutting taxes for Canada's growing small businesses, enabling more small businesses to avail themselves of the reduced federal tax rate of 9% compared to the general federal corporate tax of 15%. The sixth is supporting Canada's innovation clusters for innovation ecosystems for plant-based protein alternatives, ocean-based industries, advanced manufacturing, digital technologies and artificial intelligence. Before I speak on these six items, I would like to recognize this budget as prudent and fiscally responsible. My personal political ideology is at the centre of the political spectrum, and for me being fiscally responsible is very important. I notice that our fiscal anchor, the debt-to-GDP ratio, is expected to fall to 45.1% this year, and go down to 41.5% by 2026-27, closer to the prepandemic levels. We need to go in this direction so that we have the same fiscal strength if we get hit by another disaster like the current pandemic. Related to this is the composition of our borrowing. We had very low interest rates for a long period of time, and now they have started to trend upward. When the rates were low, our government locked in these interest rates with increasing the size of our long-term borrowing. In the decade prior to the pandemic, on average, about 20% of the bonds issued by the government were issued at maturities of 10 years or greater. Over the course of the last year, the federal government allocation of long-term bonds was about 45%, which is a good thing. The third general observation about this budget is what I have been asking for a couple of years. I have been asking that we launch a comprehensive review of government programs. Some of the programs have been around for many years, and some were introduced in recent times as part of our urgent need to fight the pandemic. We need to evaluate if the programs are delivering what they were intended for. We need to know whether the objectives or the end results are still relevant and/or effective use of taxpayers' dollars. I have said that we need to repurpose or reallocate resources to programs that contribute to quality economic development. I am glad the budget announced the launch of a comprehensive strategic policy review to assess program effectiveness and to identify opportunities to save and reallocate resources to adapt government programs and operations to a new postpandemic reality. Last, the budget dealt with housing, immigration, skills and child care. Yes, these are social policies, but what is just as important is that they are economic policies, too. I entered politics with three objectives. My first objective was affordable housing for all who need it. I am happy to note that the budget builds on the national housing strategy and addresses both affordable housing and housing affordability. Now, I move on to development of critical minerals. As I said earlier, a big opportunity for Canada, and at the same time a critical necessity for Canada today, is developing and implementing critical minerals and clean industrial strategies. The global energy market is worth $10 trillion, and it is undergoing tremendous change. Many significant geopolitical events during the past 100 years were due to energy market considerations, so much so that some have said many countries' foreign policies are totally based on their energy policies. Now, another dimension has been added. What was behind the scenes is now in the front. Energy is a national security issue for all countries. It is both an opportunity and a necessity for Canada to focus on the energy industry. The nature of the energy industry is changing. The transportation sector is going from gasoline-powered vehicles to battery-operated vehicles. Renewable energy sources, such as wind energy and solar energy, are not only becoming financially feasible on their own, but can enhance their standing with battery energy storage systems. Right now, the battery industry is dominated by China. To secure continued availability of batteries in a future battery-dominated world, we need to have our own supply of batteries manufactured in Canada. We have one strong advantage that many countries do not have: We have the critical minerals required to manufacture batteries. Critical minerals are also central to major global industries such as green technology, health care, aerospace and computing. They are used in our phones, our computers and even our cars. Critical minerals are already essential to the global economy and will be in even greater demand in the years to come. We are talking about nickel, lithium, cobalt, graphite, copper, rare earth elements, vanadium, tellurium, gallium, scandium, titanium, magnesium, zinc, the platinum group of metals and uranium. Canada has an abundance of these valuable critical minerals, but we need to make significant investments to make the most of these resources. A thousand-pound electric battery requires about 500,000 pounds of earth to be moved. As Daniel Yergin said, “You're creating whole new supply chains that don't exist, and you're trying to do it in a very fast time. That means transitioning from Big Oil to Big Shovel.” In Canada, we have knowledge, expertise and a long track record of financing and developing mineral projects. We are indeed the world leaders, but we need to move fast now. We need to support the industry with incentives, which this budget proposes. More importantly, we should make the critical minerals regulation process simpler so companies seeking to invest look for a balanced and predictable regulatory environment and a collaborative approach among different orders of government. I am glad that the budget would make important investments in improving our regulatory processes. I will touch on just one other aspect: the Canadian innovation and investment agency. Let us face the bitter truth about innovation in Canada. Our main innovation challenges are the low rate of private business investment in research and development, and the uptake of new technologies. These are key requirements for our knowledge-based quality economic growth and for creating very good-quality jobs. This agency is being modelled similar to those that have helped Finland and Israel transform themselves into global innovation leaders. I look forward to hearing the questions.

1301 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Apr/25/22 12:40:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Nepean for raising a very important point on critical minerals. In January, I believe, the Toronto Star and the National Post reported on Zijin Mining Group, a state-owned enterprise in China, purchasing Neo Lithium Corp. in Canada. There was no national security review of that purchase. Moving forward, does this member believe that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to stop Chinese state-owned enterprises from purchasing Canadian companies so that Canadians can secure access to critical minerals, such as lithium, to produce batteries and cars moving forward?

100 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 57