Evidence of meeting #17 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was company.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Just a quick clarification. When you were talking about when a company engages your department on an application, you said, I think, that you imagine it's because they feel that they are Canadian and that's why they engaged your department.
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
I should have said because they believe they're subject to the act.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
They're subject to the act. But perhaps it could be also—and I'm putting words in your mouth—because their lawyers want to ensure that they're not breaking any laws. They might believe that they're in fact not Canadian.
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Then the appropriate provision in the act is there. There is what is called a status opinion or even a non-status opinion. Status opinion goes directly to the “Canadianness”--they can ask through that process, or they can ask other technical questions, which we can provide advance opinions on. If that's the question, there's a door for that; if there's an application, there's another door for that.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
I can't comment one way or the other, because that gets into the specifics, but other investors have.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much.
I must say it's always a pleasure to have you here explaining our laws. Thank you very much for your presentation and your answers.
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
It's a pleasure. Thank you very much.