Industry Committee on June 19th, 2023

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

This is more like a point of interest.

The committee members will remember that in the 43rd Parliament, in March 2021, this committee issued a report, “The Investment Canada Act: Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Facilitating Canada's Recovery”.

I think this was unanimous, but I wasn't part of the committee then. On page 43, it says:

Since 2009 and as of 2018−2019, 15 of all 22 national security reviews ordered by the Governor in Council targeted investments by investors whose ultimate controller(s) originated from China. Of these 15 investments that underwent a national security review, nine were either blocked, divested, or withdrawn....

Actually, going into a more detailed review led to recommendation 8, which states:

That the Government of Canada...introduce legislation amending the Investment Canada Act to allow for the review of and ability to prevent the subsequent takeover by a state-owned enterprise of a previously ICA approved acquisition of a Canadian firm or assets by a foreign privately owned corporation.

This amendment is meant to try to deal with some of that recommendation this committee put forward in the act. I would urge all members—hopefully—to.... Some members here, I think, may have participated in the production of that report. I know Mr. Masse did, but he's not here today.

That was the intent behind this motion: to try to implement that provision of the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Are there any more comments on CPC-11?

Madam Clerk, please proceed with the recorded division on CPC‑11.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Before we move on to other amendments to clause 15,

I wish to inform members that the clerk has informed me that we have an extra 15 minutes free. Given that we started late and that we're not moving very quickly—I must observe—I suggest we take this free 15 minutes.

Are there any other amendments to clause 15?

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I'm happy to move amendment NDP‑4 to clause 15. This amendment was introduced by my colleague from Windsor West.

I'll leave it to the committee to discuss.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Boulerice.

Before we can debate it, I regret to inform you of my decision.

Bill C‑34 amends the Investment Canada Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Industry to impose interim conditions on investments to prevent national security breaches that may occur during the review, to make an order to extend the review under part IV.1, and to allow written undertakings to be submitted to the Minister of Industry to address national security risks and to provide that the minister may, with the agreement of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, terminate the review as a result of the undertakings that have been made.

However, amendment NDP‑4 seeks to add a new obligation for the Governor in Council, that of providing the reasons why an order has not been made, which constitutes a new provision not provided for in the bill as adopted by the House of Commons at second reading. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the chair's opinion, for the reasons stated above, the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, Mr. Boulerice, I rule this amendment out of order.

As you know, that decision is not debatable, but it can be overruled if a member of the committee requests a vote on it.

Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I quite like NDP-4, so as much as I hate to do this, I'd like to do a vote to challenge the chair.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The decision of the chair is therefore sustained. Accordingly, amendment NDP‑4 is defeated because it is out of order.

Are there any other amendments to clause 15?

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have amendment NDP‑5, which you have in front of you. I'd like us to move to debate and then vote on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are there any questions or comments on NDP‑5?

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Could I ask the officials for a comment on what this would or would not do?

[Mark Schaan]

Mr. Chair, this proposal would include new factors of personal information and the right to use IP, which the minister must consider when determining whether or not to advance a review to section 25.3. We would point members to the current guidelines on the national security review of investments, which clearly indicates that among the factors taken into account in national security reviews are the transfers of technology or know-how and access to sensitive personal data.

The existing guidelines on sensitive technology and IP are actually broader than this amendment and are not limited to whether or not its development was funded by the government, and that's taken into account in our national security reviews.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I looked at this as an addition...that it wasn't narrowing it.

Are you telling me that it narrows it, further restricts it? To me, it provided a little more certainty by saying that in addition to the powers the minister has, we want a special emphasis on or look at things involving privacy and intellectual property.

[Mark Schaan]

We'll go back to the same discussion we had last week about whether or not things are for greater certainty or whether they're actually narrow.

If there was an indication that this was for greater certainty, it would not negate what precedes...as in, already calling on allowing for it. By explicitly calling for just these two factors, it draws attention to these two factors and suggests that potentially they were intentional and that no others are.

As noted, our national security guidelines already include this and are broader than this, so the question is whether or not this potentially draws attention to why they were specifically iterated and not others.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

If I propose an amendment saying “for greater certainty”, are those the words that are needed? It would be a subamendment, I guess.

[Mark Schaan]

In the previous discussion about “for greater certainty” clauses, it was because there was an itemized list. This is just for the purposes of national security, which is obviously broadly defined, and then we have guidelines that are already articulated.

“For greater certainty” may actually.... We'd have to look at the specific wording to know whether or not it was potentially adding greater certainty or whether it was potentially limiting the national security considerations.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Not being a lawyer, that's why we're suggesting the words “for greater certainty” to deal with it, as opposed to some other—

[Mark Schaan]

It depends on how they're drafted, unfortunately, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schaan.

If there are no further comments on NDP‑5, I will call the question.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Can I propose a subamendment that just adds—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I just called the question on NDP‑5, Mr. Perkins. If there's unanimous consent to go back and allow you to move a subamendment, I'm prepared to hear it.

We didn't pass it. I just put it to a vote.

I'll let you quickly move your subamendment, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I don't have this written out. It starts with “In determining whether”, and I want to add the words “For greater certainty” before that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Has everyone heard the terms of the subamendment proposed by Mr. Perkins?

The legislative clerks are asking if you could you repeat that, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

In NDP-5, the start of (1.01) would be “For greater certainty,” and then it would continue on in the way it is written.