44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2023 02:00PM
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—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:31:04 p.m.
- Watch
I do not know if there is a cross-debate or if members are having conversations, but I would ask them to take their conversations outside.
The hon. member for Abbotsford.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1036 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member started off by talking about how, in the last few years, Canada has performed horribly in terms of investment, and how nobody wants to invest in Canada. We do not have to dig far into the Internet to find a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development from 2021 that specifically says that Canada, in the last five years, has ranked among the top two in the G20 for doing business; is the third-easiest in the G7 to start a business; is the fourth among the G20 for being the least complex to start a business; and had the second-largest foreign and direct investment-to-GDP ratio in the G20 between 2016 and 2020.
Where is the member getting his information that would suggest Canada is not a place that is open for business?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:42:58 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he had an opportunity to ask a question, and I want to remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets that it was not his turn to speak either.
We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has the floor.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague whether the Conservatives would be willing to agree with the NDP that a good amendment to this bill would be to ensure including any investment in a Canadian company made by a foreign investor that goes through, and later that company is bought by a state-owned enterprise.
The example I gave was Anbang Insurance Group in British Columbia and Retirement Concepts. I think we need to make an amendment so we drop the requirements to zero so all those investment proposals would be examined by industry Canada.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the following.
He has said that foreign investment has plummeted during the time of government, while at the same time acquisitions by state-owned and state-controlled enterprises have gone through without review. That has resulted in something that was best captured in last week's Globe and Mail article titled, “The growing threat of a low-wage future for Canadians”. I just want to quote two lines from that editorial.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ranks this country last in potential economic growth over the next 40 years.
If that OECD forecast becomes reality, the Canada of 2060 will be a relatively poorer country, falling further and further behind other advanced economies into second-tier status.
Would the member comment on that?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am familiar with that article. I am familiar with those statistics, and they are damning of the Liberal government because we could do so much better as a country. We are so rich in human resources and in natural resources. We are high-tech leaders, yet somehow, we are falling further and further behind when it comes to our economic performance. Part of that is the fact that we are no longer an attractive place to invest in.
We can do better.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start off by saying that I will be sharing my time.
I am pleased to appear before us today to speak in favour of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, and in particular, the context that led us to undertake these amendments.
Canadians know that our government will always act quickly and decisively to respond to threats to our national security. They also know that a nuanced approach is necessary to ensure that we do not impede the flow of capital that is so important to our continued prosperity.
Indeed, Canada remains a destination of choice for foreign investment. This investment helps businesses prosper and grow, creates well-paying jobs and ensures strong economic growth that benefits all Canadians. Canada has a long-standing reputation for welcoming foreign investment and a strong framework to promote trade while advancing Canadian interests. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for FDI.
The Investment Canada Act was enacted 38 years ago in 1985. The act allowed the government to review foreign investments to ensure that these benefits exist, and it was updated in 2009 to include a framework for a national security review of foreign direct investments.
The world in which Canada now operates is increasingly characterized by the complexity of linkages between economic competition and geostrategic clashes. Globalization has brought new threats to Canada's national and economic security. By exploiting access routes to the Canadian economy through investment, potentially hostile foreign actors can appropriate technologies, data and infrastructure, which are critical to Canada's national security. We also know that some foreign states seek to inhibit Canada's economic growth and to exercise economic coercion against Canada.
Such activities pose a threat not only to Canada's national security but also to its long-term economic prosperity. Canada must have the tools and resources to protect its assets from economic threats to national security. The Investment Canada Act must therefore also continually adapt to these considerations. The complexity of these dynamics can be seen in the increased volume of activity under the act in recent years.
Indeed, there have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in an entire previous decade. The review process is also increasingly complex, as international transactions and ownership structures are also becoming more complicated. The proposed modernization of the Investment Canada Act is designed to make this review process more efficient and more transparent.
Economic-based threats to national security are an area of increasing concern not just for Canada but for our allies as well. Other international jurisdictions are moving in response to shifting geopolitical threats, either by amending or putting in place investment screening regimes. Our action is needed to bring Canada into greater alignment with our international partners and allies.
We will recall that the Investment Canada Act played an important role in Canada's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As early as March 2022, we issued a policy statement that any investment controlled or influenced by the Russian state will also support a determination by the minister that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such an investment could be injurious to Canada's national security, regardless of its value.
This statement sends a clear message about our commitment to protecting Canada's economic security from unwanted investment. Moreover, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy is clear that this region will play a critical role in Canada's future over the next half century.
The significant opportunities for economic growth in this region are also accompanied by challenges related to the objectives of certain world powers that do not share our democratic and liberal principles. We must respond to this reality in a number of ways, including in the way foreign investment is assessed.
In short, the Investment Canada Act plays a key role in protecting Canada's economic interests from hostile foreign actors. It is broad in scope and allows Canada to respond to changing threats that may arise from foreign investment while protecting Canada's openness to beneficial international investment.
The package of amendments proposed in this bill is designed to assure businesses and investors that Canada has a clear and predictable regulatory regime. Today, we are taking bold steps to modernize key aspects of the Investment Canada Act to ensure that our review regime continues to be effective, rigorous, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world.
I thank—
749 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, I do have to stop the hon. member there. She will have four and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 6:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motion at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here on Bill C-248. I thank all the members in the House for getting it here. In particular, I thank the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and also two Liberal members who supported it.
We have tried to work with the government on this, and I will get into that later. Unfortunately, to date, it has not joined us, but we shall see. I have tried to use this place as constructively as possible, especially given the fact that Canadians have shown they want us to work together. Unfortunately, the government has not done so at this time.
I will reference a quote on the Parks Canada website, which I think dismantles some of the government's objections to this private member's bill. It is key to our democracy. When one thinks about the work that goes into private member's business, it does not matter where one is from and what the legislation is about. It is our right to be heard, and it is our right to change our Canada outside of the partisan envelope.
I got lucky in being picked to be put up high on the Order Paper for this bill. I could not think of something stronger to put forward. I have been trying to push for a new border crossing in Windsor. My first public meeting as a city councillor was for a new public border in 1998 at Marlborough Public School. The proposed legislation that I have today is for a property next to it that goes along that entire border process that would create a national urban park for all of Canada. It would protect 200 of Canada's 500 endangered species. It is supported universally by groups.
I will read from a Facebook post by the government's own Department of Environment. On June 23, 2022, the Parliament of Canada posted the following on its Facebook page:
Did you know that national parks are created through Acts of Parliament?
On this day in 1887, Parliament passed the Rocky Mountain Parks Act, which established what is now Banff as the first national park in Canada.
Today, there are 48 national parks. They are found in every Canadian province and territory.
The Parliament of Canada acknowledged in its post, on the anniversary of this law for Banff, that national parks are created by acts of Parliament. It is very helpful today, because now the government insists it wants to go through some process that is still being drafted to deal with this issue. However, what we have done is a responsible, accountable, transparent and inclusive process for this legislation. This legislation is going to amend the Canada National Parks Act.
That is how every single national park has been created. This is how we could go about fixing a situation in Windsor. It is an opportunity to provide some restoration with regard to reconciliation. One of the most important partners that we have in this process is Caldwell First Nation.
I will help citizens picture this area. Where I am from, in southern Ontario, the Detroit River runs right through our city, but there is also a connection of the lake system for the Great Lakes.
What has happened is that, unfortunately, we have done what a lot of places have done. We chopped, milled and cut down all the trees. We moved in with agriculture and manufacturing. It has left very little green space. However, because of our location and our temperate environment, we have Carolinian forests that provide a refuge for species at risk. That includes trees and fauna, amphibians, the Massasauga rattler and others that are endangered. Similar to many other places in the country, we are fighting to get these green spaces back.
There is a unique element of this process that needs to be put to the test. This is all public land. There is no private land. The government will say now, out of desperation, that some of it is private property, but it has not provided any geographical evidence about those locations. We would want to get those things out anyway.
It is important to note that we are unifying public lands through this process. There is no position whatsoever that we want, other than to be able to work with the City of Windsor, which supports this bill, and to be able to work with Caldwell First Nation, which supports this bill. The Province of Ontario just passed a motion in the legislature about this bill. On top of that, we have several environmental groups that have all shown support for this bill. It is truly grassroots. It comes from the fact that we have these endangered species that need a better level of protection than they get through the hodgepodge system we have now.
One thing we did fight for along this area of the Detroit River, as it extends into other parts of the city along that front, is the shoreline that the Windsor Port Authority still has not transferred over. I want to remind all members of Parliament that port authorities are the creations of Parliament under the Marine Transportation Security Act and are no different from Canada Post or anything else. They operate through regulation, but it is the people's land.
It was that area that some developers tried to bulldoze and clear-cut. Fortunately, I was working with one of the developers in the area who tried to get involved in the project. I called the person up and said, “Do you realize what is happening? Do you realize what you are going to be part of?” That person took out their position in support of the project at their own cost, and the property has now been saved for the future. It is supposed to be transferred, but we are still waiting for that to happen.
There is no time to wait when we think about the property I am talking about. When the Gordie Howe bridge, which is next to it, is built, 40,000 vehicles per day could potentially traverse it, with up to 10,000 transport trucks per day, and we do not have environmental assessments on how that is going to take place. The Gordie Howe bridge is a large piece of infrastructure that crosses two and a half kilometres of the Detroit River and onto the territory of the Caldwell First Nation. Chief Duckworth, who has been to Ottawa with me several times, has appeared at press conferences and is basically a mentor in many respects.
Caldwell First Nation is part of the restitution with this country. When it fought with the British, it was promised the Point Pelee area. After that, its members were burned out of their properties, went through a long process and finally have a good settlement now. They are setting up a proper reserve and are doing very well with other types of initiatives. They are the land stewards of this area. This is one of the good-news stories.
Members of the Caldwell First Nation have stood shoulder to shoulder with us during this process. In fact, they were the first group I brought down here when I was trying to save Ojibway Shores to see if they had interest in the property. At that time, they did not because they wanted to go toward Leamington, which is next to Point Pelee, and they have that land now. The beautiful part of this story is that despite being forced out in the past, they are now co-managers of Point Pelee National Park. They will also be co-managers of the park that we are proposing here. This story highlights what we should be doing right.
Chief Duckworth, who has been very good on this, said this at committee: “We know that we need a legislative framework in order to make this national park happen, and I am here to support the hard work that's been done and the hard work going forward.” Members of the Caldwell First Nation sent several letters, which have gone to all members in this chamber. Again, they have showed a path forward.
Across the Detroit River, the Wyandot community is also supporting this bill, and I will get into this a bit because it is international. The Wyandot community, another aboriginal organization, has sent in a letter of support for this.
I want to point out that a private member's bill can be done in a non-partisan way. The member for Essex has been terrific on this and has been supportive in the past. We have seen members come and go, and one of the previous members, Jeff Watson, whom I used to work with and who was from the Conservative Party, supported this. Even though we may not have always seen things the same, we knew how to work on local interests.
The current member for Essex said this:
This is a very unique opportunity for the folks of Essex. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We are somewhat landlocked in Windsor-Essex, in that we're surrounded by three bodies of water. I've spoken extensively with Mayor Dilkens, the mayor of Windsor; Mayor Bondy, the mayor of LaSalle; and Mr. Watson, the previous member of Parliament. We've done our due diligence. Everybody says this is a fantastic thing to do.
The member has also brought up an issue that I think gets under-reported, which is about mental health and getting out to other spaces. I want to thank the member for Essex for that, because sometimes we lose some of the other lenses we view things through. That is why it has been important for me to have this type of support.
I also want to thank the Bloc Québécois for making sure that this is understood as a very unique project that really defines our area. What many people do not know is that Sandwich Town, which is right next to this area, is the oldest European settlement west of Montreal with a francophone culture that is still part of its rich vibrancy. In fact, the Detroit River, with its first nations and the French settlements, had a seigneurial system where farming came up. We have a number of French names throughout the city system, which run north to south, and after the British came, British names ran east to west. We have this combination, but the francophone culture is very strong. In fact, a new hub centre is a couple of blocks from my house, so the language is going strong with some of our new Canadians who are by this area.
This is a social justice issue in many respects, because if we amend the National Parks Act as we want to, it will give it the same stature as Point Pelee and other parks, and it deserves it because of the hundreds of endangered species. On top of that, the area it is next to, as I referenced, Sandwich Towne, has been one of the poorest places in Canada in many respects with child poverty and single mothers. We have dealt with a series of different poverty issues over the years because the international border and Matty Moroun, a private American billionaire who passed away and whose son owns the property now, caused a lot of interesting and very difficult problems over a number of years, including buying and boarding up homes. Why this is important is that we need to do this right.
When we fought to get the Gordie Howe bridge, there were those who said we should twin the Ambassador Bridge. Even the Prime Minister gave them an order in council to do that a few years ago and let a billionaire family have its way with Canada. We said “no” to that. OMERS, one of the largest pension funds, wanted to run a truck route through my riding. We said “no” to that.
What did we do? We fought for the right thing, which is a brand new public crossing. It was a compromise we got, which is now the Gordie Howe bridge, that will provide economic security for all of us, as well as environmental advantages. The same battle is happening right here.
We said we were open to amendments. I worked with the minister after the Liberals voted against it. We had meetings and several different things. They went to committee with those amendments, and one of their own Liberal members ruled the minister's amendments out of order. I was asked by the Liberals in the morning what happened. I said that, first, their parliamentary secretary and others were not there and, second, I did not know, and that they have to figure out what is going on in their own party. In 20 years, I have never seen a minister's own amendments ruled out by a member of the minister's own party. That was something I cannot explain.
We want Liberals to be there. That is why I agreed with the amendments and we worked with them. I want to put that in the past because this is so important for our future. Time is of the essence. What clearly came out of the committee hearings with the different departments is that they admitted that eventually they might have to adopt my process because theirs is still in draft and they do not know what they are doing.
We are not going on about the other urban parks out there. They are being proposed as a rubber-stamp way of going about the different areas. What we are saying is that, as they are figuring that out, we have a unique thing in the Windsor-Detroit region on the environment and the land that we are looking to consolidate that is crystal clear and can move forward. We have limited time because of the Gordie Howe bridge coming in and there have been no environmental assessments for this.
The importance of this is clear and evident. I have a letter from John Hartig, one of the primary environmental people in the Michigan area. He wrote, “Benefits of a National Urban Park in Windsor”. Another title was, “Detroit's Benefits of a National Urban Park in Windsor”. It talks about the park. It talks about how it will celebrate history, enhance cross-border trail tourism, become a destination of choice, reap economic benefits, strengthen transboundary conservation benefits and help change the perception of our area.
There are many benefits to this park system. I want to revisit the fact that the way to legally create national urban parks right now in Canada is through changing the Parliament of Canada Act. Why the Liberals would want us to have something less than that, I do not know, but these endangered species and the people need this type of protection, and we are following that due process.
As I have noted, the City of Windsor supports this, the mayor and city council. Councillor Fred Francis appeared at committee and talked about it, as did the Wildlands League. Thank goodness for its work, which is CPAWS. It has done amazing work. Unifor was at the environment committee so we had the unions involved, as well as Wildlife Preservation Canada; Citizens Environment Alliance; Essex County Field Naturalists' Club; Green Unmah, a youth activist group; Friends of Ojibway Prairie; and Save Ojibway. Local residents have put in thousands of petitions.
The area that we propose is part of the traditional territory of the Three Fires Confederacy of first nations. That includes the Ojibway, Odawa and Potawatomi. They did everything right for our community in what they were asked for back in the War of 1812. Now they are part of this partnership and the full consultation and respect for consultation is in the Canada National Parks Act. That is why Bill C-248 goes forward with solidarity, because it is the right thing, for the right place, for the right people.
2727 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
An hon. member: On division.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Parks Canada does have a process. Can the member provide assurances to the House today that Caldwell First Nation, in particular, does not want to follow the Parks Canada process, but, rather, to support the member's legislation? Is it fully supportive of the legislation or does it want to follow process that has been established by Parks Canada? Can the member specifically tell us what Walpole Island First Nation is saying about the legislation?
The member has talked about the importance of reconciliation and doing the consultation with indigenous people. I am wondering if he could provide his comments on both of those points.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wish the member would read the packages he gets, because Caldwell First Nation has provided him and his office, a number of times, a letter of support for this and they are unequivocally behind it. Chief Mary Duckworth has been here several times with me, including appearing at the environment committee in front of members saying she supports the legislation.
I can keep quoting all those things and providing letters. They are the ones who actually have the treaty rights of the area. We are letting them work with Walpole Island First Nation, which is also part of the consultation program.
Most importantly, there is no higher level of consultation than the National Parks Act itself, as opposed to the Liberal plan right now, which is a draft and is made up with no meanings in terms of accountability and no public access to some of the things they are doing, and it does not have the regular money for financing the proper stewardship that is necessary for the future.
We are doing it the right way. They are doing it the short way.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and I congratulate him on his efforts. It is always very rewarding to see a private member's bill reach third reading. It has gone through a very thorough process. He went out and got the support of his community, which is great.
I was a bit surprised by the question we just heard from the Liberal member, who was wondering why my colleague did not go through the regular Parks Canada process. I am sure the hon. member can assure us that the process he went through is probably even more thorough than the current Parks Canada process.
At this point, is my colleague confident that he has the support of the other parties in the House to finally get his bill passed?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's contributions and question.
On June 23 of last year, the Parliament of Canada, on its Facebook page, posted the following: “Did you know that national parks are created through Acts of Parliament? On this day in 1887, Parliament passed the Rocky Mountain Parks Act, which established what is now Banff as the first national park in Canada.”
I actually read something from the Parks Canada site. They have a draft process for these urban parks they are doing right now where they do not have any public notifications of meetings, timelines or time frames. It is on their website as a draft process.
We are not going to wait around for them to act as we watch all these endangered species in our communities suffer. We want to go forward with accountability and create what is richly deserved as a proper national urban park for everybody with the highest degree of accountability and consultation, with Caldwell First Nation and others, like the City of Windsor. All the owners of this land want it to move forward.
The only problem has been with the federal government. It still cannot even transfer a piece of property from the port to Environment Canada. I have been going on about this for four years, and it will not even transfer that one environmentally sensitive property. We need to do it now. We cannot wait any longer.
241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
