- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manitoba for that reminder and her excellent question.
We are aware of the fact that international agreements have consequences. I would like to point out that, sometimes, countries step in directly to protect things. That can result in a degree of nationalization to protect Canada's greater interest. I clearly remember a time when I was active in provincial affairs. I think I was a journalist back then. I was very surprised when the Conservative government bought a Saskatchewan potash company that was in danger of falling into foreign hands, where the risks would have been a lot greater.
Yes, I am very proud of the Harper government's record, especially in the international relations and international trade arena. I have said it before and I will say it again and again: As Canadians, we have tremendous respect for the member for Abbotsford, the foreign affairs minister who signed more agreements than anyone else in the world, and he deserves it.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, obviously we do agree to have more trade agreements with other countries. I am very proud of what we did when we were in office under the strong and proud leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper and the wise actions of the member for Abbotsford, who was the international trade minister. He did a tremendous job signing around 40 deals with 40 different countries. Therefore, yes, we do support that.
The reference to the Rocket with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister reminds me of something. I am sure the member is a hockey fan. Maybe he remembers a series in 1986, I think. Does the member remember the guy from the Oilers who shot and scored on his own net? That is what I think of when I see the Deputy Prime Minister.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this important bill for the Canadian economy. It is also a pleasure to know that you are presiding over our debates today. I would like to salute you. You and I are from the same cohort, from the 2015 election. We were both elected eight years ago, so I would like to salute you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to see you in the chair.
Bill C-34 is obviously very important, because it focuses first and foremost on our international trade. As we all know, Canada is one of the countries, if not the country, that is party to the most agreements with other countries. I already did this earlier in the week, but I would once again like to highlight the extraordinary record of the member for Abbotsford, who served as minister of international trade for nearly six years under Prime Minister Harper. The member for Abbotsford has an exceptional record, having given Canada access to markets in over 40 countries. His legacy definitely benefits all Canadians today. Once again, I salute him.
The issue, of course, is that the world is changing and evolving. What was happening in China 10 years ago was not as alarming as what is happening there now. What is happening in China today is completely degrading and unfortunate, especially for its people and for those living here who are originally from that country. Unfortunately, the attitude of China's authoritarian government is poisoning international relations and trade relations. That is why it is imperative that the government take drastic action to ensure that international trade relations are profitable and, above all, safe and secure.
We agree with the spirit of Bill C-34. We proposed roughly 10 amendments, four of which were adopted. I will come back to that later.
Before going any further, I had the privilege of being appointed international trade critic under the leadership of the Hon. Candice Bergen, who was our interim leader two years ago. I had requested the post. I would like to thank Ms. Bergen once again for giving me the opportunity to serve in that role for several months. I was very impressed by the work of my colleagues, because this is a department where details really matter. There are many specific elements that need to be understood and that have repercussions on many other areas. I was very surprised and seized by this reality.
I would like to commend the work done by our colleagues, especially the member from Nova Scotia, who is with us, and the member for Bay of Quinte, who sat with us on the committee at the time. They are doing a great job. Of course, I cannot leave out the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. Wow, that is a long name, but I think I got it all.
Mr. Luc Berthold: I think there is another name in there somewhere.
Mr. Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for this lack of decorum when it comes to properly naming the riding. If there is one thing I dislike in federal politics, it is that riding names are so long. In provincial politics, it is a maximum of two words, and that suits me just fine.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I agree.
Mr. Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, we agree. For once, the member for Winnipeg North, from the Liberal Party, supports me. That is great. Finally. It is never too late to be good.
Let us come back to serious things, because this bill is very serious. As I was saying, it seeks to tighten the rules that govern our international trade with countries that are no longer our friends, countries that have a hidden agenda that is covert, hypocritical, cowardly and, most importantly, dangerous for our national security. That is why I must remind the House that, unfortunately, some very serious incidents, in our view, have occurred in relation to international trade.
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 the Chinese company Hytera Communications, which is owned in part by the People's Republic of China. A careful review should have been done, but it was not. In 2020, even more insultingly, the Department of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to the Chinese company Nuctech, which was founded by the son of a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 Canadian embassies and consulates.
Foreign Affairs is doing business with a company with a checkered past and close ties to the Chinese government, the communist dictatorship in Beijing, and this equipment is being sent to 170 of our embassies. That makes no sense. How did the government let that happen? Clearly there was a greater need than ever for more rigorous analysis around international transactions.
The other example I am going to share is no better. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract for sensitive communications system equipment to Sinclair Technologies, which used to be a Canadian company but became a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International, which was itself acquired by Hytera Communications. Hytera Communications, which is headquartered in Shenzhen, China, is partly owned by the People's Republic of China, and it is a major supplier to the Chinese ministry of public security.
The RCMP is doing business with that company. Something had to be done right away. That is why we welcome the government's intention to take action on this. We did our job conscientiously during clause-by-clause in committee, where we proposed some 10 amendments. Four were adopted, and I want to talk about them.
The first amendment sought to reduce the threshold for triggering a national security review to zero for all public companies with assets worth $512 million among countries not on the list of trade agreement investors. The goal is to ensure that all investments by public companies can be reviewed. I should add that we can keep doing business with countries we have free trade relationships with.
The purpose of the second Conservative amendment adopted by our colleagues was to ensure that an automatic national security review was performed every time a company had been convicted of corruption in the past. That is a very good thing; I do not think we can ever go overboard on ethics.
The purpose of the third amendment was to ensure that the items examined during the national security review process would include acquisitions of assets by public companies and not only by new commercial establishments, share purchases and acquisitions. If by chance a foreign company wants to buy part of one of our domestic companies, that is precisely the kind of case that is reviewable, which is why we allow it. We need to pay very close attention to that.
The fourth Conservative amendment adopted by our colleagues proposes implementing the requirement for the minister to automatically trigger a national security review every time the investment review threshold is met. This amendment requires the minister to review all investments or acquisitions made in Canada by a company with a value of more than $1.9 billion. The national security review is no longer an option or a choice.
Now more than ever, our country is a free trade country. Now more than ever, terrorism is rampant, and some countries have a bad attitude and act in a heinous way. We are obviously thinking of Putin's Russia and what is happening in Ukraine, among other places. What is certain is that our country must be more vigilant than ever when it comes to international transactions. We have to ensure that we maintain trust with our trading partners with whom we have free trade relations, but we still have to be very careful.
Before I sit down, I feel compelled to comment on the Prime Minister's announcement today that he intends to scrap the carbon tax on home heating. I would like to recall one thing: A year ago almost to the day, on October 22, 2022, the House spent an entire day debating this very proposal, which had been moved by the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition. Who voted against the measure that the government adopted today, a year later, a year too late? It was the Liberal Party, with support from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. Unfortunately, voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly.
Concerning Bill C‑34, we take a positive view and are very pleased that our amendments were adopted.
1478 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, of course. The mere fact that legislation is being introduced to address this issue is a step forward. Increasing oversight of foreign investments with respect to national security, specifically those from communist China, is a good thing.
However, this step forward does not go far enough. We need to make our experts even more effective. Cabinet and the minister responsible will indeed have a little more power. However, we have sadly been able to demonstrate, as have several colleagues, that over the past four or five years, there have been shortcomings in this regard. We must therefore better equip our intelligence services and our police services, those who ensure our security on a national and international level.
In our view, this bill does not go far enough. Fortunately, we will be able to improve it when it is studied in parliamentary committee.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague. However, he made a little mistake in his question: I am the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, not for Louis‑Hébert. The member for Louis‑Hébert is seated over there. We know that because over the weekend he said on Quebec television that he was in the corner over there with the leader of the Green Party. I will leave it at that.
I thank my colleague for very clearly demonstrating that we must always be vigilant and that when we increase the threshold for review so much, we are exposing ourselves to risk. That is where we need to pay attention. I completely understand.
I will play fair. The situation changed dramatically from 2015 to 2023. Oversight of China in 2015 may not have been very strong and that was understandable. These days that is no longer possible. We need to be vigilant and take this seriously.
As my colleague from the Bloc Québécois demonstrated so well, the bar is currently set too low. We have to set it higher. I also want to thank my colleague for highlighting the problem that came up at Hydro‑Québec.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, and especially pleased to speak after my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.
We are here to discuss a bill that relates to national security, the trade relations Canada must engage in with other countries and the possibility of investors from other countries buying Canadian companies.
Let me make one thing clear right off the bat. China is going to come up a lot during this debate and in my speech. However, there is a big difference between the people who live in China, Canadians of Chinese origin and China's Communist government. These are completely different things, and anything negative we say about China's outsized ambitions relates to Communist China, not to individuals and certainly not to Canadians of Chinese origin.
This is about international trade. We welcome everyone who wants to invest here because we also want Canadians to be welcome in other countries. We are a free trade nation. Canada has more free trade agreements than any other country—over 40 in total.
Following an election in 1988, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was mandated by the people to sign the free trade agreement with the United States. The famous agreement between “the three amigos”, the United States, Canada and Mexico, followed a few years later.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague from Abbotsford, who has been the architect of literally dozens and dozens of our free trade agreements with other countries. The member for Abbotsford was the minister of international trade for over six years. He was the longest-serving minister of international trade in the history of this country, and thank goodness for that, because we have great relationships with Asia, Europe and the Americas. That is the legacy of the member for Abbotsford.
As members will recall, when this government was elected in 2015, it shelved a few agreements, only to eventually renew them on the cheap, which is too bad. Still, Canada today is the land of free trade.
No one can claim to support free trade and say that Canada should go abroad but that our doors here in Canada should be closed. The doors must be closed in an intelligent way. That is why we have a number of concerns about this bill, which is essentially about tightening up security measures when it comes to national security reviews of foreign investments.
This bill basically provides for seven important changes to improve the national security review process for foreign investments. It also seeks to give the minister a lot more authority in certain circumstances.
The Conservatives do not disagree with the principle. However, as with anything, the devil is in the details, and that is where we need to do our job as parliamentarians. In principle, we agree that we need to revise the national security review process for foreign investments, but Bill C‑34 is seriously flawed, and we are going to talk about those flaws.
First, let us remember that the government's track record on foreign investments from China over the past seven or eight years is poor and fails to live up to expectations. In the early 21st century, China was not under the harmful influence and control of the current Chinese government. However, the situation has deteriorated since then and we are now paying the price.
In 2017, the industry minister did not ask for a full national security review prior to the acquisition of Norsat International, a communications company based in British Columbia, and its subsidiary, Sinclair Technologies, by Hytera Communications, a Chinese company belonging in part to the People's Republic of China.
In 2020, the Minister of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to a Chinese firm, Nuctech, which was founded by the son of a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 Canadian embassies. In a national security review, that checks off all the boxes. We are talking about X-ray equipment in our embassies and a contract was given to a company founded by the son of a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party.
In January 2022, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did not follow his own guidelines when he expedited the purchase of the Canadian company Neo Lithium Corporation by the Chinese state-owned company Zijin Mining without a national security review.
Much of the automotive industry is going electric. Private companies around the world, manufacturers, are investing $500 billion in this shift. Electric cars require lithium. Canada has lithium. Now, however, the government has decided to let a Chinese company take over this natural resource that is essential for economic development in the 21st century. That is a huge loss.
I want to talk about another company that was mentioned earlier: Hytera Communications. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a sensitive contract for communications systems hardware to Sinclair Technologies, which used to be a Canadian company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International. Norsat International was founded and based in Richmond but was acquired by Hytera Communications.
That is where things stand today after all these years of Liberal governance. Whether it is lithium, X-ray machines in our embassies, or security equipment for the RCMP, critical items are being funded by investors from China, a Communist country, need I remind the House.
There is a big difference between Communist China, Chinese people and Chinese Canadians. Shame on anyone who makes a connection between those elements; there is none. It is the Chinese government that is to blame.
Let us talk about Hytera Communications, which belongs to the People's Republic of China and is a major supplier to China's national security department. In December 2022, we learned that the Canada Border Services Agency used Hytera's communications technology equipment in 2017. Let us remember that Hytera is facing 21 espionage-related charges in the United States and was banned by President Biden himself. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Pressure has mounted in recent years as companies tied to the Chinese communist regime have strengthened their positions here in Canada. The government has been slow to act on that, which is why it introduced Bill C‑34.
Essentially, Bill C‑34 gives the minister more powers, but the minister needs more still. Here are some ideas we are going to put forward during the committee's clause-by-clause study to improve this bill. First, all acquisitions subject to a net benefit review or a national security review must get cabinet approval regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
The bill also does not provide for the preparation of a list of autocratic countries that are banned from having Canadian companies or assets. I am talking here about China and Russia. The bill also does not include a net benefit test, or a measure of attempts to take control of key industries through acquisitions under the investment thresholds. Finally, the bill does not make any changes to the legal definition of a state-owned enterprise, which some consider to be too vague.
Let me be clear. We are in favour of free trade. Free trade means trade with other countries. That means that we can invest in other countries and other countries can invest here. Let me be clear, when it comes to China and the Communist Party that is currently in power there, we need to be incredibly vigilant. We need to recognize that they are not our natural friends.
We therefore need to enhance security measures to prevent mistakes, such as a lithium company ending up in the hands of the Chinese government, Chinese-controlled X-ray equipment in our embassies, and RCMP communications ending up in the hands of the Chinese government, from ever happening again.
Limits must be set, and that is what we want to do by improving this bill.
1336 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:18:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canada is grappling with a major crisis that is affecting all Canadian families.
This is the first time in over 30 years that inflation has hit 5.1%. This affects all Canadian families but, unfortunately, we are not here this evening to talk about something that is having a direct impact on all Canadian families. We are here to talk about an act this government wants to invoke. This act is unnecessary, the circumstances do not meet its criteria and it sets precedents that could end up hurting us in the future. Seven of the 10 provincial governments and seven of the 10 provincial premiers have rejected it. It is therefore not appropriate. The act I am talking about is the Emergencies Act.
This act was made almost 35 years ago and has never been invoked. I will explain why it has never been invoked, why it should not be invoked now and why the government has chosen to invoke it anyway. I will explain why, unfortunately, it has the Prime Minister's petty partisan fingerprints all over it.
Before getting to the matter at hand, I want to say two things. First, I want to thank the police forces who are keeping people safe here in Parliament, in Ottawa, and across the country with honour and dignity. I want to thank them. In the same breath, and I will immediately admit to my conflict of interest as a former journalist, I can only harshly condemn those who are attacking or intimidating journalists who are currently working in difficult circumstances. I am thinking of the miscreant who assaulted the TVA reporter last night. Like a coward he attacked her from behind. This situation is completely unacceptable and intolerable in our democratic life. Let us hope that the police forces can find this individual who acted in such an unacceptable manner.
Let us now talk about the Emergencies Act. The leader of the official opposition, our Conservative leader, was very clear when she said that we are the party of law and order and that we believe that the trucks must leave. That is the position of the Conservative Party concerning what is currently going on in Ottawa. Illegal blockades are not acceptable.
We have to remember that three weeks ago, when this all started, the first rally that took place was much less serious than people were saying. I am not the one saying this. I would like to quote a tweet from Radio-Canada, which is hardly a conservative organization. On January 30, the French CBC tweeted:
Slogans, dancing and fireworks: far from an insurrection, the thousands of people gathered in Ottawa protested in good spirits.
That is how Radio-Canada described the beginning of the protest that took place in Ottawa. Unfortunately, three weeks later, the protest has become an occupation and is no longer unacceptable. An illegal situation has no place in our system of law and order. There is no such thing as somewhat or partially illegal. Something is either legal or illegal. There are thousands of ways to express opposition to something. It is important not to deliberately choose the wrong way.
The Emergencies Act has existed since 1988. It has never been invoked or implemented by any government. As the Prime Minister of Canada says, it is not a law to be taken lightly. It is not the first, second or third option, but rather something to be used when the situation is extremely serious and important. That is what the Prime Minister said. Perhaps he should have reflected on his own words before he invoked the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has been asked the following every day: What were the first, second and third things he tried before invoking the Emergencies Act?
He is incapable of saying anything that even slightly resembles an answer to the question. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister.
The Emergencies Act does not even meet his own criteria. This act must be invoked only when there is a serious threat that keeps the government from functioning. Apart from yesterday, the House has always been able to sit. The Prime Minister—although I am not permitted to say it—was in the House and stood on this very floor to answer questions. The government continued to function. This act must be invoked only if we feel that our territorial sovereignty and integrity have been undermined. This has not been the case. Yes, there have been some problematic situations, which I will speak about later, but they have been dealt with using the ordinary laws we already have, without having to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The Prime Minister told the House that he had consulted with the premiers.
He did not actually consult the premiers. He informed them of his decision. That is why seven premiers, seven provincial governments, are opposed to this act.
The truth is that the current situation and what has been happening across Canada over the past few weeks can be dealt with under the existing laws, without the use of the Emergencies Act.
The actions that the government is proposing to take under the act include freezing accounts and assets and directly interfering in people's bank accounts, which could be used for illegal purposes.
Immediate action can be taken under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. We do not need the Emergencies Act. As for threats to Canada's sovereignty, direct action can be taken under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code without any need for the Emergencies Act.
Subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Code covers the much-talked-about situation with the tow trucks. It gives the police the right to ask anyone who does not have a reasonable excuse “to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace”.
The Emergencies Act, which includes such extreme measures, need not be invoked since subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Codes does the same thing. There is no need to used the act given that existing laws are already been applied.
In fact, the situation in Ottawa is unfortunately not unlike what has happened elsewhere in the country. We saw the same problems with blockades at the border in Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. Those four crises were resolved using existing laws.
How were they resolved? In those areas, we saw real leadership, police forces helping one another to act directly, and a coordinated effort supported by politicians that led to action being taken.
Yes, in Coutts, weapons were discovered that that could worry everyone. When I myself saw this cache of weapons, I wondered what was going on, because it was dangerous. However, the weapons were discovered, and the people will be punished under existing laws without there being the need to resort to the Emergencies Act. We must be vigilant in that regard.
Members will recall that the War Measures Act was used for the last time in 1970. The now-repealed War Measures Act looked nothing like the act we are debating today. The new Emergencies Act was drafted by the Conservative government under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and introduced by the Hon. Perrin Beatty in 1988.
The Emergencies Act has never been invoked, even during major demonstrations at events like the G7; the G20; the Summit of the Americas, which I attended as a journalist; the Oka crisis; the COVID‑19 crisis; and September 11. These extraordinary events could have been used as reasons to invoke the Emergencies Act, but it was not invoked.
The Liberal government, however, invoked this law over what has been happening in Ottawa. It did so because this government is unfortunately led by a Prime Minister who is, above all, guided by partisanship. This is nothing new.
I remind members that during the SNC‑Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister let partisanship take over when he stuck his nose into a legal matter. That is appalling.
The same thing happened with the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, when he did everything he could to prevent the truth from coming out and being available to everyone.
Remember that an election was called to bring in a vaccine mandate for public servants when there was no scientific advice on such a thing. The same thing happened with the truckers. There was no public health advice or scientific analysis to justify the vaccine mandate.
The government did nothing for 17 days before deciding to act. Curiously, on February 11, it said that everything was in place to act without invoking special legislation, but then on February 14, it decided to invoke the special legislation.
This is a Prime Minister who stigmatizes, divides and insults Canadians. These are not my words, but those of the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert. What Canadians need is real leadership and a prime minister who brings people together and unites them, not someone who stigmatizes people who do not think like him.
1538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
