SoVote

Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.)

Nov/9/23 3:14:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we were glad to work with the NDP on this piece of legislation. It fulfills a promise that we made on page 22 of our platform in 2021. It is very much in keeping with the spirit of tripartism, which this country is built on, where business, unions and government work together on major issues that affect this country. May I say it is richer and better for having worked with the NDP on this legislation. I look forward to continued debate by members in this House.

89 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Nov/9/23 3:15:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are abandoning caregivers again. They promised to make the Canada caregiver credit refundable, yet people are still waiting. We are in an affordability crisis. Unpaid carers are struggling to keep up with the cost of living. Meanwhile, the Liberals are missing in action. Caregivers deserve better. Will the Liberals finally live up to their promise and immediately deliver the refundable tax credit?

66 words

Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Nov/9/23 3:15:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleagues. The Canada Revenue Agency does have a tax credit for caregivers. We are doing everything in our power to promote this tax credit and to ensure that people are well informed. We use tax clinics with our volunteers to promote this program and serve the people who need it most.

58 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/9/23 3:16:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned when I got a chance to speak to the House on another occasion that I wanted to run around and hug everyone. I have not reached all of my colleagues yet, but I am very happy to be back. My question for the hon. Minister of Environment, who may not be so happy to see me back, is based on the report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The report says clearly, “The 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is insufficient to meet the 2030 emission reduction target”, to which I add that the 2030 emissions reduction target is too weak to meet our global share of responsibility for the Paris Agreement goals of holding to 1.5°C and as far below 2°C as possible. However, the commissioner did say there is barely enough time to do more to meet the weak target. Will the government cancel the TMX pipeline, ban fracking and put in place an excess profits tax on the oil and gas industry?

177 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Nov/9/23 3:17:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my colleague in the House. I agree with the findings of the commissioner. We need to do more. Our plan shows that we are at 34%, towards a 40% emissions reduction target. Since the environment commissioner did the study, we have put up a number of new measures to help fight climate change and accelerate the reduction of climate pollution, including a zero-emission vehicle mandate and new methane regulations. By the end of the year, as the Prime Minister announced in New York, we will also have a framework to cap the emissions of the oil and gas sector.

107 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Nov/9/23 3:18:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the House salutes Bernard Lemaire's immense contribution to the development of the Quebec business community and the green economy in Quebec, Canada and around the world, and offer its condolences to his family and loved ones.

64 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/9/23 3:19:05 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/9/23 3:20:07 p.m.
Watch

Before members leave, I would like to rise in this place to make a correction. I mistakenly said that it was a standing order in the House that members had to sit in their place and be quiet while others are speaking. It is not a standing order of the House; it is actually just a long-time tradition of the House and one by which members authorize the Speaker to maintain order and decorum. Therefore, I would like to apologize to all members for making that error.

88 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/9/23 3:20:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we all return to our respective ridings to mark Remembrance Day and honour the men and women who proudly fought and died to defend our country, I have a few questions for the government House leader about the work that awaits us. I especially hope that she will have an answer for the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who asked us forcefully and adamantly during question period today precisely when Bill C‑56 would finally be passed. I refer the question back to the government House leader since this bill has not been called in the House since October 5. Can the government House leader tell us when she intends to call Bill C‑56? It will certainly not be tomorrow or next week, since the House will not be sitting. Could she tell us what business awaits us when we return from our constituency week?

154 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/9/23 3:21:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I hope that his interest in this bill means that the Conservative Party has changed its position and is finally supporting it. Even though we have not yet received that confirmation, perhaps the Conservatives finally want to help Canadians with housing and competition. We hope to see the Conservatives reverse course soon. Next week, of course, is a constituency week, when MPs will be able to connect with their constituents and have a chance to join them at Remembrance Day ceremonies over the coming weekend. Our priorities when we come back will be Bill C-57, with respect to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement; Bill S-9, with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52, to enact the air transportation accountability act. I would hope that, instead of playing dilatory parliamentary games, the Conservatives would allow for debate to happen on those bills, but I guess we will see when we come back. Last, on Tuesday, November 21, at 4 p.m., the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will deliver the fall economic statement.

192 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/9/23 3:23:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2023, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a member from each recognized opposition party, and a member of the Green Party, may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the minister’s statement and each statement shall be followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments; after each member has replied, or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

156 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/9/23 3:23:28 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. government House leader's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

39 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Nov/9/23 3:24:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and debate the important issues faced by Canadians, specifically, those good people who sent me here from the beautiful constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot in east-central Alberta. If I could, since this is the last sitting day prior to Remembrance Day, I would like to quickly reference a couple of things. I hope I have the latitude to do so. Today, I met with Harold and Mike, who are members of Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada. It was an interesting meeting, where I had the opportunity to hear from these two distinguished retired servicemen about how they are not considered to have fought in a war in their time in service to our country. I wanted to acknowledge this specifically here today; an appropriate commemoration, truly, would be to ensure that those who served in our country's armed forces, especially during times of conflict, are acknowledged accordingly. I wanted to acknowledge that before I get into the substance on Bill C-34, because I do not think I will have a chance to do so otherwise before Remembrance Day. Of course, all of us in this place honour the sacrifice made by so many. We join into debate here on Bill C-34, which is a bill of seven parts that addresses a host of issues in relation to amendments to the Investment Canada Act. In particular, I would like to highlight a few things today. I listened with great interest this morning, and to previous debates, and I have participated in previous discussions related to the bill. I wanted to ensure that aspects of this are—

284 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/9/23 3:26:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Is the hon. member going to be sharing his time? The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

18 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/9/23 3:26:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, yes, I was going to get there, so I appreciate that. I will take this opportunity to let the table know that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the new and very capable member from Manitoba, the member for Portage—Lisgar. He came in with big shoes to fill, maybe not big in size, but big shoes to fill in terms of his predecessor, the Hon. Candice Bergen. I look forward to splitting my time with him. Getting back to the substance of Bill C-34, we have before us a bill that addresses aspects of what has become an increasingly problematic circumstance globally at a time when there are specific demands associated with the global investment climate that have put many of our supply chains at risk. Of course, we saw the practical workings of this during COVID, with respect to supply chains and things that many Canadians took for granted. We always expected to be able to see things like toilet paper on grocery store shelves, yet we saw during COVID that the supply chain system and the numerous aspects of that were challenged. There were pressures that resulted in things like grocery store shelves being empty. We saw things like a shortage of microchips. This meant there was a shortage of a whole host of things that many people would not have associated with microchips, from vehicle manufacturing to other things. This has a specific relevance to Bill C-34. When it comes to foreign investment, we have to ensure that, as a nation, as a G7 country, we get it right in all aspects of how we permit, specifically, state-owned enterprises in the larger context of foreign investment happening in our country. I do not think anybody in the House would argue that there certainly is investment needed and that Canada should be a destination to invest, a destination for capital. We have seen that over the course of our history. Certainly, I look back to the time when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The predictable business environment that existed within this country was one that was envied around the world. We saw in the midst of incredibly challenging global economic circumstances that Canada was a beacon of hope and predictability, where people could invest and see some certainty. Over the course of the challenges that we have seen over the last number of years, whether that be in relation to the COVID pandemic, whether that be in relation to the host of concerns surrounding supply chains, the fact is that over the last decade or so, there has been a radical shift in the geopolitical objectives of certain state players around the world. I would notably say that the People's Republic of China would be at the top of that list, although it is not limited to it. Certainly, its objectives have changed the global investment climate dramatically. I have heard a lot of members from the party opposite criticize the past record. I believe it was the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg who referenced that the Harper government had done some preliminary work on CETA. I am proud that it was Conservatives that negotiated the deal. The Liberals almost screwed it up, but they were able to, with support from Conservatives, actually get that across the finish line. Over the last decade, there have been radical shifts that have taken place. Of course, that has to be addressed in our legislative frameworks governing some of these things. We need to ensure that they are responsive to that. We have seen over the last number of years, specifically the last eight years that this Prime Minister has been in power, an erosion of trust, as I have talked about often. This includes the investment climate in our country. We are dealing with significant advancements in things like technology. We are seeing a demand for things like critical minerals. We are seeing food supply chains being put at risk. We are seeing the need to ensure that we have tight parameters and an understanding, so that not only does this protect Canadians first and foremost, but that it also ensures there is that investment certainty in our country, including for folks here at home investing. Quite often when we talk about things like investment, it gets lost on many folks who are not trading stocks on a regular basis or not staying in tune with the financial markets. They may see a headline that the TSX is up or down, or something like that. The reason this has such particular relevance is that every single Canadian is, in fact, an investor. If one has ever paid into a pension fund, whether that be the CPP or otherwise, that individual is an investor. We need to ensure that we have that predictable investment climate. Specifically, we were disappointed at committee that the Liberals were not more responsive to some of the very practical amendments the Conservatives brought forward on this bill. Those amendments would have ensured that a threshold, for example, to trigger a national security review was reduced so that for Canadian resources, including intellectual property, there was a safer and more secure environment. It would ensure that those things could not fall into the wrong hands, as we have seen, unfortunately, has been the case over the last number of years. In fact, if one could believe it, there were 10 amendments that the Conservatives brought forward. They were practical things, things that we heard from testimony at committee that would have helped address some of what we believe are ways the bill could have been improved. As I come down to the last minute or so of my speech, we have a need in this country to ensure that our investment climate responds to the demands of a modern supply chain. We need to ensure that we have everything that is required, whether it be the critical minerals that are so essential for the manufacturing of things like our cellphones, or whether it be a host of other things that go into the economy of today, and the economy that is being built for tomorrow. It is absolutely essential that we get this right. I would make this point in terms of the larger conversation and not just in relation to Bill C-34. We have to take seriously the national security implications when it comes to foreign investment in Canada, and not only when it comes to big multinational mergers and whatnot, which may make headlines. We heard at committee, and we have heard throughout the course of debate, that there is a host of peripheral discussions that are required when it comes to strategic investments that may serve the geopolitical interests of a foreign state, some of which are hostile to our national interest. If we do not take these things seriously, we can see a diminishment of Canada being able to have a secure economy for our people, and also a secure investment environment for capital, which is so very essential. As we continue the debate on Bill C-34, I hope we can take seriously how important this bill is, not only in terms of the issues it is purported to address, but also in terms of the host of concerns surrounding foreign investment. We have to ensure that we get it right so that Canadians can depend on a predictable environment for their capital, where Canadians can benefit on the home front most important of all.

1264 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Nov/9/23 3:34:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois thinks that Bill C-34 does not go far enough in protecting our economic flagships, our head offices, and the innovative efforts of SMEs, which are being bought up by foreign entities. Often, they come up with important innovations that become profitable abroad. We do not think that enough transactions are being reviewed. I would like my colleague to elaborate on that. Does he think that we need to do more to protect our head offices and innovative small businesses?

90 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/9/23 3:35:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is right. There are many examples where there are innovations. We have an incredibly innovative culture here in this country. An example is my home region of rural Alberta, whether it comes to the oil and gas sector and the incredible innovations that make our energy sector the cleanest and greenest on the planet, which we can depend on and be proud of, or whether that is in agriculture, where we see incredible innovations. We need to ensure there is that security so that when somebody innovates in Canada, it does not end up being stolen from them, even if it is a small investment. Sometimes it is not the billion-dollar acquisitions and mergers that will make headlines on BNN Bloomberg. Also, we heard stories of fishing ports on the Atlantic coast where there were strategic investments meant to control and take away opportunities from Canadians. We have to ensure that we get it right. The member is right that this bill does not address all those concerns. It takes some steps, but certainly more needs to be done. It is too bad that the Liberals did not take our advice seriously and pass the common-sense amendments that we brought forward during the committee discussions.

214 words

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

Nov/9/23 3:36:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague on the issue of critical minerals as I represent Timmins—James Bay, which has some of the greatest base metal and critical mineral deposits anywhere. There is a number of issues that we need to face in Canada in terms of being able to compete in this fast-moving energy transformation. Number one is making sure that that supply chain is able to benefit our economy. We know that other international economies are desperate to get metals. The other issue is strategic. That is about whether or not we put a lens of sustainability on, for example, metals like cobalt and lithium that are controlled by China and that are being exploited in really brutal conditions, for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We need to actually have a supply chain that says we can do it sustainability, that we can do it with good jobs, that we can do it with investment, and that we can do it to build up a Canadian-North American economy, as opposed to simply going to the bottom line of what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with Chinese control and horrific human rights abuses. I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say on that.

223 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/9/23 3:37:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, do members know what is tragic about the comments that member just made? I agree with him that we do need to ensure that we protect the critical minerals that are essential to our economy. We need to ensure that Canada is the place where we have an abundance of those things, whether it is lithium from my home province that is in what is known as produced water, a by-product of oil. Here is the tragedy. That member is talking about cobalt, a very important part of the modern economy. It is also that member who stands against Canadian oil and gas development. He is concerned about human rights abuses when it comes to critical minerals and the abuses associated with that production abroad, yet he and his coalition partners in the NDP want to see energy production outsourced from Canada to jurisdictions where they do not care about human rights, where they do not care about LGBT rights, where they do not care about the dignity of humanity, and they would even go as far as to fund the war machines that would kill citizens in countries like Ukraine. It is tragic that the New Democrats are either ignorant to that reality or they simply are intentionally conflating the fact that we could be a leader when it comes to all critical minerals, all energy, yet it is because of individuals like that and the ideology of that coalition that is holding Canada back.

249 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/9/23 3:39:26 p.m.
Watch

This is just a reminder to keep our questions and answers as short as possible so everyone can participate in debate.

21 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 250