Industry Committee on June 14th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Williams and Mr. Schaan.

I now give the floor to Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think, around this table, you'll find great support for this bill, and for this amendment as well. We don't want to get into amendments where we can open ourselves up to legal challenges, so I propose three changes. I would like to ask the officials afterwards what they think about those changes in line with the amendment.

Number one, we would like to change the period of time that's prescribed under section 15, and replace “21 days” with “45 days”. The 45 days would actually match other relevant review periods in the act itself. Number two, we would add a section to make sure that investors are notified, because it says “the non-Canadian gives notice of the investment to the Director”, but it doesn't actually say that the investor gets notified. Number three is that this only apply to SOEs where we do not have trade agreements.

That would protect us against legal challenges, as far as I can see, but I'd like to ask the officials.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm sorry. Can you clarify that? Can you repeat those last two points?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

The first one is to change “21 days” to “45 days” for the review period. Second is to add a section to make sure that investors get notified. Third is that this only apply to SOEs where we do not have trade agreements.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a quick point of order.

I assume that you'll circulate this in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Gaheer, do you have the exact wording of the subamendment you are proposing that can be circulated around for members in both official languages?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I understand that it's been sent to the clerk, and it will be circulated to members via email.

Is that correct, Mr. Gaheer?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You had a question for the officials on your subamendment.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

What do they think of this in line with the amendment? Would it protect us from legal challenges, as opposed to what the amendment was originally?

[Mark Schaan]

I will speak to the three pieces, as I understand them, in turn.

On 21 days versus 45 days, to be candid with the committee, 21 days is unrealistic. The time frame to adequately evaluate a notification under the act, analyze whether it should be reviewed for net benefit for public interest, consult with provincial and territorial stakeholders and then perform the necessary work to obtain an order in council—and for anyone who has ever done that, it's not the easiest or quickest process—the 21-day timeline is highly unlikely. I think I could say with relative certainty that it's never going to align with the Treasury Board Secretariat's filing and meeting schedule. The 45 days for a prescribed period is more appropriate, as it would match the relevant review periods in the act.

On the second piece, as it relates to notice to the investor, the existing section 15 includes subparagraph 15(b)(ii), which requires the director to provide a notice to the non-Canadian foreign investor in order to make it reviewable. This is required not merely out of procedural fairness, but because it sets in motion a process, in section 17, where the investor is then required to file an application. Applications require more information and documentation than just a notification. Therefore, the reference in section 17 would need to include the new subsection 15(2) in order to trigger that whole process.

Finally, as it relates to narrowing the scope of SOE investments to those outside of trade agreements.... As you would have heard from me last week—I was going to say earlier in the week, but earlier in the week was a different bill; it's all a blur—obviously, there's some consideration of the degree to which we have trade agreement obligations and WTO obligations. Our trade agreements are specific to the fact that we're trying very hard to ensure we are creating a level playing field for investments and encouraging investments between our countries. That's the case for a number of countries that feature state-owned enterprises. I know that when we think about SOEs, we always think about particular countries. Actually, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is viewed in many countries as a state-owned enterprise, by the definition of SOE, as are similar pension funds in a number of other countries.

Limiting the scope to those with whom we do not have a trade agreement still causes trade risk but obviously does not violate the trade agreements we've actually set out and potentially disadvantage Canadian outward investment, which would suddenly now be potentially subject to a reciprocal, retaliatory net benefit, which would potentially create both uncertainty and friction in the system.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Great, thank you.

For my colleagues, I think this is the path that Mr. Perkins wanted to pursue as well, the middle ground that he wanted to find.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I would propose, if the committee members agree, to briefly suspend so that the exact wording of what you're proposing gets circulated in proper form.

Is that okay with members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We will suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Colleagues, we are ready to resume.

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. You are always welcome in our committee.

With that attitude, you're always welcome on this committee and a great help for the chair.

There have been discussions among the parties. I'm looking around the table.

The way the subamendment presented by Mr. Gaheer is worded needs to be worked on. With unanimous consent, we could defer clause 7 to the end of the bill.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 7 allowed to stand)

Mr. Masse, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm hoping to set an example, seeing that my request for the same thing was denied by the Liberals the last time we went through this.

I just want to put that on the record. The NDP will be supporting this out of collegiality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse. You set a good example.

Clause 7 is reserved for later consideration by the committee, so we are moving on to clause 8.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

On a point of order, we're on clause 7, so before we move to clause 8, we have an amendment, a different amendment, Mr. Chair, to put before the committee.

This is on clause 7, reference number 12525751.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I don't have it, but the way I understand it, we just had unanimous consent.

Just one moment.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, my apologies. We'll move it when we get back to clause 7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, we'll be on the subamendment of Mr. Gaheer when we come back to clause 7, but we've decided unanimously to move on and to reserve clause 7 for a later time.