44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 6, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House, as always, and add my voice to the debate we are having here about Bill C-34. When we say “Bill C-34”, most Canadians who are watching or hearing the debate here would know exactly what that means.
I would remind members that today, we have heard several points of order from members on the Liberal side of the aisle who do not like the topics we are covering regarding this legislation. However, Bill C-34 is an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, modernizing ways in which the federal government could attract more investment in this country. This line is very important, because it was the Prime Minister who instructed the industry minister to “Contribute to broader efforts to promote economic security and combat foreign interference by reviewing and modernizing the Investment Canada Act”.
I am going to take the time I have on the floor here today, and hopefully not get “point of ordered” too many times from the other side, to say this: Actions speak a lot louder than words. What we have, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, is an economic situation in this country that is not very good. After the vote today, for example, a big contributor to the frustration of millions of Canadians is the punitive and damaging carbon tax that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are imposing on this country. The carbon tax is bad for our economy, for business, for investment and for Canadian households.
In talking about investing in Canada and competition from other countries around the world, the example I am going to cite is one that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, has raised from our neck of the woods in eastern Ontario.
We talk about the government's economic record, its actions and not just its words in a mundane piece of legislation. The Liberals are continuing to endorse the carbon tax, and they voted today against taking the carbon tax off all forms of home heating for all Canadians. If that is not out of touch, then the way we have greenhouses taxed, and the lack of competition, or frankly, taxing them out of business in this country in too many cases, is a perfect example of how the Liberals' policies are failing.
I think of SunTech Greenhouses in Manotick, in Carleton County just north of my riding in eastern Ontario. For years, it has been struggling to compete. It is based in Manotick, here in eastern Ontario, and it is struggling to compete on cost with tomatoes that come from as far away as Mexico, or even farther south than that. Why is that? It is because the greenhouse in eastern Ontario is being nailed with the carbon tax. The irony of all that is the fact that the CO2 it creates does not go into the atmosphere; it goes into the greenhouses and into the plants that are being grown here locally. It is local food, a local economy and local investment, yet it is getting nailed with the carbon tax, which is the height of irony. It is struggling to compete with tomatoes shipped from Mexico, coming up on a ship and then by truck, and those countries are paying no carbon tax whatsoever.
What we are seeing is our potential in agriculture in this country being hurt badly. We are seeing farmers being taxed for growing food, truckers being taxed to ship the food and grocers being taxed to sell the food. It is adding to a competition problem in this country, and it is adding to, not taking away from, the cost of living crisis in every single part of this country.
I think about two areas I have had the opportunity to visit in recent months. Let's say someone runs a business in northern Ontario and is trying to compete for investment into Canada and actually taking the investments here and maybe exporting around the world. Timmins is hundreds of kilometres away from southern Ontario and the United States, our largest trading partner.
Let us just think about it for a second. There are zero rebates for businesses in Timmins when it comes to these carbon taxes that they are being nailed with. This is only just beginning. They are going to be quadrupling in the coming years. If they are trying to compete with a business in, say, Michigan or even the other way around, if a business in Michigan is competing with somebody at the soup and salad bowl, Simcoe County in Ontario, if a business is trying to take the 600 or 700 kilometres up to Timmins to provide groceries and fresh food, they are being nailed with the carbon tax on the Canadian side.
One of the things I think is really important in this debate is what I will say again: actions speak louder than words. We have a modernization effort here in this bill, long past due. We have tried to add to and strengthen the bill in many ways with no success from the Liberal government.
We talk about priorities and we talk about legislation coming forward. There are so many ways to combat the problems we are facing. Axing the carbon tax is a very high priority for a growing number of Canadians. It is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan and it is punitive to competition and to investment in Canada, as we can see by recent stagnant numbers, which we are continuing to see in economic indicators on inflation, on housing and on our growth as an economy. We are going in the wrong direction.
The other half I want to highlight is when we talk about efforts to combat foreign interference, we will not look at the words. We will look at the actions of the Liberal government the past couple of years.
We have seen multiple efforts by the Prime Minister and the NDP and Liberals voting together multiple times to ignore, brush aside or try to sweep under the carpet the seriousness and magnitude of foreign interference in our country. In response to the bombshell allegations that were leaked by journalists and courageous whistle-blowers who had to come forward to give the information, we found out that there were numerous members of Parliament who were under surveillance, under threat. It was not until these leaked reports and these whistle-blowers came forward and they were published on the front pages of The Globe and Mail and other national publications that the government finally attempted to address the issue.
Look at the Rosenberg report by Morris Rosenberg after the 2021 election. That was an absolute whitewash attempt to cover up the severity and the depths to which the Communist Party in China attempted to interfere in our democratic process. They did not even bother to interview members of the official opposition from the Conservative Party on their experiences and evidence of serious wrongdoing in the 2021 election. They said that report would be good enough and tried to move on.
Second, whenever further allegations came and they were under further pressure, their actions spoke louder than their words. They appointed a special rapporteur. Most people had to google what rapporteur even meant. For months they went on a charade in a process that resulted in the resignation of David Johnston after he lost a lot of credibility—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Eric Duncan: I hear the heckling.
1277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/6/23 5:11:04 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. members are not heckling. I think they are having conversations. I would ask them to have those conversations outside. They have to realize that their voices carry in this House.
The hon. member has one minute to finish up.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would be uncomfortable if I were the Liberals too, called out for their failed record on combatting foreign interference.
We had a resignation from David Johnston. We had 24 hours of filibustering at a committee because Liberals did not want the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify. Let us not forget the Winnipeg lab documents where the House of Commons ordered the production of those documents, but the Prime Minister and Liberal government took the Speaker of the House of Commons to court in an attempt to cover up information that Canadians deserved to know.
As we talk about issues of combatting foreign interference, if we talk about issues of strengthening investment in Canada, there are many failings after eight years of the Prime Minister and NDP government that leave a lot to be desired. Bill C-34 is just scratching at the surface of what truly needs to be done.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but I heard the member say that he was the government that pushed David Johnston into a position of excusing himself from his responsibilities. If I remember correctly, and maybe the member can remind me, did the member and the Conservative Party not continuously call for that resignation? Am I forgetting something?
I am pretty sure the pressure was primarily coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I am calling out is the Liberals' continued failed attempts to get to the bottom of foreign interference in this country. They appointed a rapporteur who had many conflicts of interest. They created more questions than answers around the process. They set up a process to try to cover up the truth. They did not want a public inquiry and they did everything they possibly could to avoid it.
The Liberals set up the Rosenberg report, they set up the rapporteur and they avoided, like the plague, a public inquiry. It was only pressure from Conservatives that they finally caved and got a public inquiry going in this country.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will try to ask a question that has to do with the bill before us.
There are two things that must be assessed when it comes to foreign investments. First, we must determine whether there is a net benefit for the Canadian economy. Second, we must take into account any national security considerations, which the member spoke a lot about.
Since this is the digital age, many countries are saying that digital infrastructure should be considered critical infrastructure and that it sometimes needs protecting from potentially hostile foreign investments. Does the member agree with me that the telecommunications sector should be considered critical and strategic infrastructure here in Canada?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will echo what many of my colleagues on this side have raised. Members who are on the industry committee will know, when this bill was at committee and amendments were being considered, we put forward 14 different amendments to try to add a more rigorous review process of acquisitions and investments from foreign-state enterprises entering Canada. Just to understand how seriously the Liberals take this issue, of the 14 amendments that would strengthen the process even further, only four of them passed.
I would say to the member from the NDP who voted for time allocation and voted for all this to proceed that they are going along with the Liberals and only passing, for example, four of 14 amendments that would further strengthen the bill.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to elaborate a bit more on the topic he was just speaking of.
I would also ask him, because this is on national review, to talk about the kinds of supports needed by our industry in continuing to grow our export volumes in just about all the products we have.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a lot of time with legislation, what happens is that the details, what the government is going to be doing through regulation afterward and the process will be very key. I know of many incidents and examples, by colleagues at committee, of trying to understand what protocol, processes and resources would be provided for this year. There needs to be a time frame for review for when a decision will be made, and making it as clear and as quick as possible in order to continue with investments that are worthwhile and are not of a national security concern or threat. We need to address those in an expedited or reasonable time frame.
There were not a lot of assurances from the other side of the number of employees, the number of regulations, the time frame and the processes. Again, we are going to have to wait and see the actions of the government in the coming years. If it is based on other pieces of legislation, we do not need a ton more bureaucracy and cost to the taxpayer.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. Bill C-34 attempts to update and strengthen the Investment Canada Act through seven significant amendments. Mainly, these changes to the act aim to protect Canada's national security with stricter regulations and higher penalties. Why does the government feel we need this bill? Here is a little background and some timelines.
In the Prime Minister's December 2021 mandate letter to the industry minister, he asked the minister to:
Contribute to broader efforts to promote economic security and combat foreign interference by reviewing and modernizing the Investment Canada Act to strengthen the national security review process and better identify and mitigate economic security threats from foreign investment.
In essence, this bill would give the industry minister more time and authority to assess foreign transactions that might compromise national security by removing the Governor in Council from the initial process while also making penalties more severe for violating the Investment Canada Act.
Why, again, is this bill needed? Well, in 2017, the minister of industry failed to request a full national security review of the acquisition of B.C.-based telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by China-based Hytera Communications, which is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. In 2020, the Department of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to China-based Nuctech, founded by the son of a former Chinese Communist Party secretary general, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 of Canada's embassies and consulates.
In response to some of these failures, in March 2021, the industry minister updated and enhanced guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises. However, in January 2022, the same minister failed to follow his own guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of Canadian lithium company Neo Lithium Corp. by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining without a national security review. In November 2022, the minister then ordered three Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three critical mineral firms, but not included was the previously approved acquisition of Neo Lithium. One cannot make this stuff up.
In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract to supply sensitive hardware for its communications system to Sinclair Technologies, formerly a Canadian-owned company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International. Norsat, founded and based in Richmond, B.C., itself was acquired by Hytera Communications. Hytera, headquartered in Shenzhen, China, is partially owned by the People's Republic of China and is a major supplier to China's public security ministry. It was also revealed in December 2022 that in 2017 the Canada Border Services Agency had been using communications equipment and technology from Hytera Communications, which worked with Canadian company Canquest Communications to supply the Hytera equipment.
Hytera has been charged with 21 counts of espionage in the U.S. and banned by President Biden from doing business in the U.S. When and if this bill passes, the government would need to come forward with regulations to identify the prescribed business sectors in which enhanced review processes would take place. These sensitive business sectors would be decided upon through regulation. However, it is expected these sectors would feature aerospace, defence, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, energy generation and medical technology.
After eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property and intangible assets, and the data of our citizens. The government is doing little, too late to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill. Liberals do not take sensitive transactions seriously and have failed to fully review transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises, putting the security and material interests of Canadians and the government at risk while Conservatives have continually pressed the government to ensure that appropriate national security reviews are conducted on Chinese state enterprises. While we do agree with the general principle of this bill, we have also flagged issues in which this bill does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians.
That is why at committee, Conservatives found opportunities to strengthen this bill. We actually found 14 opportunities. We put forward 14 amendments aimed at providing a far more rigorous review process of acquisitions and investments involving foreign state-owned enterprises. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal government rejected 10 notable Conservative improvements to this legislation, but we still managed to fight hard to get four amendments passed.
The four Conservative amendments that passed accomplished some changes. We reduced the threshold to trigger a national security review for all state-owned enterprises from $512 million in asset value to zero and, for countries not listed as trade agreement investors, we ensured all investments made by state-owned enterprises would be reviewable. We also implemented a requirement for the minister to review any investments or acquisitions made in Canada that exceed $1.9 billion in enterprise value instead of being an option.
These changes would be positive for Canadian industry, Canadian workers and our national interest, but Conservatives still see room for improvement in this bill. We will continue to work to improve Bill C-34 even further by working to delete clause 15, which would remove the mandatory consultations with cabinet in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security. This change would be problematic, given the number of state-owned enterprises made in Canada over the past eight years that have not undergone a security review as a result of decisions made by past industry ministers.
By removing cabinet from the process, decisions over whether an investment is considered injurious would receive less debate and scrutiny. By removing clause 15 from the bill, the language would revert to the act's current text, thus making all security review decisions reviewable by cabinet and not just by the ministers of industry and public safety.
After eight years of the Liberal government, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens, all under their watch. More needs to be done to protect Canadian interests and Conservatives will continue to work hard to achieve this.
1056 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in a now notorious case, Chinese insurance agent Anbang took over B.C.-based Retirement Concepts, which was a Canadian-owned company that operated senior living facilities. At that time, Anbang was a privately owned corporation. This takeover was approved under the current rules, and almost immediately, we saw problems in seniors homes in British Columbia, including declining quality standards, seniors' needs not being taken care of and a general decline in the care of our seniors.
It seems the current laws did not work in that case, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any suggestions on how we could strengthen Canadian laws to make sure that this kind of situation does not happen again, particularly when it has such devastating impacts on people as vulnerable as Canada's seniors.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, during the whole committee process of reviewing the bill, and this is why we are debating it at report stage, my Conservative colleagues on the committee proposed 14 amendments to improve this legislation, to improve the security and scrutiny that takes place with foreign-controlled enterprises that are looking to take over Canadian companies and the impact it has on workers in this country. Unfortunately, only four of those amendments passed.
Conservatives are looking to create situations where we can improve this legislation. We are hopeful that we can get additional changes made, including the removal of clause 15 to ensure mandatory consultations with cabinet in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the committee stage of this bill, the Conservatives introduced an amendment that would have required any major investment from a state-owned enterprise outside the Five Eyes to be considered a national security risk. My riding and a few other Quebec ridings are home to the aerospace industry. An investment from Airbus, a French-German state-owned enterprise, would have been automatically considered a threat to national security. That amendment could have posed a serious threat to major investments in Quebec, major investments in the aerospace industry and major investments in my riding.
I would like to know whether my colleague still agrees that such investments, in my riding and in our aerospace sector, should be automatically considered a threat to national security.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the amendment we proposed at committee would have allowed for a takeover by any foreign hostile country to be reviewed immediately. That would have been looked at.
It is again the whole notion of removing the mandatory cabinet review on national security issues. Does the member not feel that those members from the Quebec caucus who are members of cabinet should not have the right to review such sensitive information and sensitive matters when those decisions are being made in Canada?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Before I get into my question, I would like to recognize the life of Eugene Dery, who passed away, leaving behind his wife, Kim Galloway and their son, Dax.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague about time allocation being moved despite us having a lot of unresolved issues with this bill. Does the member care to comment on the minister saying that we are all ad idem, when clearly, we are not?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's comments. On this side of the House, we are disappointed in the government for bringing forward time allocation.
There are chances to improve this legislation. We put 14 amendments forward, and only four were accepted. We still have concerns that we would like addressed to ensure that this bill is better, better for all Canadians. That should be the priority of everyone in the House.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to address the House today on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.
There are some positive advancements in this bill. Notably, there is the move to give the minister more time and authority to assess foreign transactions that might compromise national security. These are important considerations in an increasingly less secure world where foreign actors are using several means, through asset acquisition, technology transfers and theft, to advance their economic interests, often to the detriment of others, including trade partners and allies. It is important that Canada represents itself well in this regard, and does not always arrive as the only boy scout at the negotiating table.
I will keep the rest of my comments today to the parts of this bill which, at this stage, seem to overlook key principles on which we, the people of Canada, govern ourselves, and to how some of the proposed amendments would affect business in the manner it transpires in an interconnected world, which is becoming more and more scarce of resources.
In March 2021, the current Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and let us say the industry minister going forward, updated and enhanced guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving critical minerals and state-owned enterprises. They were just words on paper it seems because in January 2022, the same minister failed to follow these guidelines when he fast-tracked the takeover of Neo Lithium mining by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining without a national security review.
It is an important illustrative case. Neo Lithium was a Canadian-listed company with assets in Argentina. None of the assets were in Canada, but in a country whose critical mineral assets were far from any supply chain that might emerge in Canada. Why was Neo Lithium a Canadian company? It is because it is registered in Canada and is listed for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange, notably, the world's foremost exchange for listing mining properties in every jurisdiction.
About 43% of the world's publicly listed mining companies are hosted on Canadian exchanges, with an estimated market capitalization of over $560 billion. An understanding of this strength is critical to grasp what Canada and Canadians bring to the world wide mining landscape.
National instrument 43-101 is a Canadian regulatory reporting instrument that provides clarity on a company's resource plays and is world-renowned. This instrument is one of the ways in which our resource industry and our financial markets have become internationally renowned as being best in class. Investors around the world count on our standards to understand the prospects of mineralization in resource opportunities. This is an international advantage that we would let go of at our peril. Negligence of this understanding is not an excuse for decades of hard-won international repute.
Co-existent with this regulatory standard is pricing. No international miner is going to list their prospect in a jurisdiction where they cannot raise funds to advance their project. Gaining so-called liquidity on these markets means that there is an active and broad array of buyers and sellers following the industry.
Funds are raised for mineral developments of all types, including critical minerals, at what is called a “multiple”. For simplicity, let us use the price-to-earnings multiple in Canada, which is currently around 13.8 times. Concurrently, broad market multiples in the U.S. are 22 times. Comparing apples to apples, the market in the U.S. values their companies at a rate about 60% higher than in Canada.
There is more to consider in that analysis, as that is frankly too simplistic, and the resource industry has more sway in the Canadian market, so its discount is more like 15% to its U.S. counterparts, but we have more small and micro exploration companies. Any entrance of political interference in this very transparent process will move investment funds, prospects, jobs and money from Canadian oversight to foreign oversight. The loss to our economy and our reputation will be significant. Let us ensure we have these considerations in mind as we develop policies that are meant to restrict foreign investment in Canadian-listed companies with foreign assets.
As an example, Australia is Canada's main competition for listing mining properties. Its disclosure regime is not considered as robust as Canada's, so we win on the basis of reputation.
Fifty per cent of the world's lithium supply currently comes from mines in Australia. Ninety per cent of the lithium extracted in Australia ends up in China. That is what is meant by a “critical mineral supply chain”, at which China has performed so adeptly. In order to develop Canadian mines for the world's growing critical mineral needs, we will need the invested funds from around the world for development and financing at a multiple where it makes sense here as much as it does elsewhere, particularly in regimes with much lower regulatory oversight.
In the case of Neo Lithium, the industry minister approved the takeover, ignoring his own guidelines. Because no one could find the rationale, transparently, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertook a study specifically on the acquisition. The committee received significant input and made three recommendations, the most important of which is “That the government create a formalized and transparent process” for these reviews. Members will note from my previous analysis that I do not disagree with the outcome at which the minister arrived. However, I am dismayed that it arose in direct contravention to his previously stated guidelines.
Canadian companies working in exploration and development opportunities globally need to continue to lead their peers in developing the minerals the world needs more of going forward. I agree with the committee that there should be a transparent process, and it seems that the minister and his department are only learning the inputs to these decisions on the fly. If they need help, there is an excess of industry expertise in Canada that can advise outside the halls of the industry department, and the minister should not be averse to seeking this input.
Now, I contrast the minister's decision on Neo Lithium with his decision this past November, where he ordered the divestment of Chinese state-controlled shareholdings in three Canadian-listed mining companies: Ultra Lithium, which has five mineral prospects, two of which are in Canada, two in Argentina and one in Nevada; Lithium Chile, which has three mineral prospects in Chile; and Power Metals Corp, which has three Canadian exploration properties. I cannot find the consistencies. Arguably, Lithium Chile should be treated in the same manner as the minister treated Neo Lithium. However, something changed, or something is not transparent, as the committee recommended it should be.
There are dozens of Canadian-listed mining companies with foreign investors, including in critical minerals, that were not addressed by the minister. At the same time, here in Canada, our only producing lithium mine is the Tanco mine in Manitoba. Tanco was taken over by Sinomine Resource Group, a Chinese state-controlled company, in June 2019. Notably, all the minerals it extracts are exported directly to China, which is a unique approach to our strategic supply chain in critical minerals. To add confusion to the mix, Sinomine was also the shareholder of Power Metals, which the minister ordered to divest its shares in the previous example I gave. It is a twisted plot with no apparent consistency.
This brings me to a significant concern with the proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act in the bill. The legislation proposes to remove Governor in Council oversight from the process of assessing foreign transactions for national security consideration. This would effectively dilute the government's role and place it directly in the hands of one minister. Let me remind members that this very minister has already acted with absolute inconsistency on this file, in direct contravention of his own guidelines. Now this amendment seeks to move this decision further from the transparent process that the industry committee recommended; he has stated that he agrees with the recommendation, yet he is not acting that way.
I say that words and actions need to align. Unfortunately, with the bill before us, as with so many of the government's initiatives, they do not.
1400 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am tempted to remind my friend of the incredibly dismal record of the Harper regime. Over nine years, we repeatedly saw the sellout of important companies: Nexen to CNOOC and Progress to Petronas. We also had the disastrous signing of the Canada-China FIPA, which is one of the reasons why Bill C-34 is so important. This was over a 30-year period, so the Harper government did not sell out Canada just for the period when it was in office, but also for more than three decades.
Diane Francis with the Financial Post, who is certainly not a left-winger, said that the Conservatives:
have demonstrated the worst negotiating skills since Neville Chamberlain....
The terms agreed to by Ottawa [and the Harper government] are unprecedented and would be laughed out of Britain, Brussels, Canberra or Washington. Beijing has negotiated a heads-I-win-tails-Canada-loses deal.
This is the kind of situation that has to be addressed by Bill C-34. We know that the Conservatives have been blocking the passage of the bill, even though they say they support it. Is it not important that we fix the mistakes of the Harper regime, and can the member apologize on behalf of Conservatives for their sellout of Canada?
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a little confused. My colleague spoke about many issues.
There are some excellent foreign investors that came into Canada in the previous regime, but that is over eight years ago now. We are looking at a lot here. My colleague advanced 14 amendments, some of which were supported by the member's party at committee and some of which were not, in order to strengthen the bill. The bill needs to be strengthened to make sure we do not have a puppet democracy, where one person would decide what goes forward. I do not know why my colleague is so averse to making a bill stronger in relation to how it would be perceived and practised in every other democratic country in the world.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Calgary Centre has done a lot of good work in the area of mergers and acquisitions throughout his career. I would like him to comment on what we are actually debating today that some members in the NDP-Liberal coalition do not seem to want to talk about, which is the removal, in the bill, of cabinet from the decision-making process.
Given that my colleague has sat at C-suite tables and board tables, and I know he understands how cabinet works, does he not think decision-making processes in the area of foreign takeovers would be much enhanced by the collective decision-making of a management team, a board or a cabinet as opposed to letting one lone minister make the decisions?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
