Industry Committee on June 19th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay, we'll put the subamendment to a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are there any further comments on CPC‑9?

Yes, Mr. Perkins.

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

Now that it's been amended, I have a question for the officials. If there has been a remediation agreement, it would not go to an automatic review now. Is that correct? Is a remediation agreement a conviction or not?

[Mark Schaan]

It depends a little on the jurisdiction. As I noted, I'm familiar with remediation agreement terms in various jurisdictions, some of which require an exchange of a guilty plea held in abeyance until such conditions are met. It would depend on the specifics of the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on CPC‑9?

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Shall clause 14 as amended carry?

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 15)

Moving on to clause 15, we have Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move CPC-10.

This is, again, the “shall” and “may” thing. In its current form, Bill C-34 doesn't compel the minister to conduct a national security review, as we've talked about before. Rather than making it optional, we believe it would be helpful to have an automatic trigger that would compel a minister to go a little deeper into the security review.

As I've mentioned before, my poster children for this are Tanco and Hytera, where the minister of the day, on whatever recommendations he chose, did not go into enough detail. I don't know what the recommendations were, but in my view they needed to go further than the first stage of the review.

My concern in this case is that I just don't see how a state-owned enterprise, a Chinese company, being primarily or controlled through the state-owned enterprise—or if not through the state-owned enterprise, at least by the 2017 national security law that was passed in China requiring it to spy and requiring it to steal technology as part of being a good citizen of the Chinese Communist Party—didn't get the in-depth review for these acquisitions.

How could a telecommunications company and its assets in Canada not be considered strategic? They obviously are in the U.S. I know attitudes may have evolved toward Huawei, and with Hytera being charged last year and the only lithium-producing mine in Manitoba being so critical to the issue going forward.

Hopefully, the Ring of Fire and those things will eventually be developed in Canada, and we're not at the point at which our only lithium-producing company is owned by a Chinese state-owned enterprise and everything it mines goes to China.

Given the emphasis on the EV strategy by the government, and by governments of the day, and the move to that, it was probably a little short-sighted to not get a more in-depth strategic look at either the net benefit or, in this case, the national security review. Perhaps today, security might be viewed a little differently from how it was viewed in 2017. I'm not sure, but hindsight's always 20/20. This forces it to go to a deeper dive. It removes some of that ambiguity and gives the minister a little more heft around the table for the minister's ultimate decision.

I won't go over the diligence of various ministers. I went over that last time and got a few smiles. Regardless of government, not all ministers are created equal. Mr. Masse called this the Maxime Bernier clause, and I tend to agree with that. At least he didn't leave any documents.... Well, maybe he did leave documents around on that too, but I'll leave it there for now. This just provides a suspenders and belt approach, as someone said a few meetings ago.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

You now have the floor, Mr. Gaheer.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to my colleague for the amendment.

I guess the worry is that there could be cases where the act of imposing interim conditions won't actually reduce the risk. It could actually increase the risk by, for example, disclosing the location of sensitive infrastructure.

I'd like to propose a subamendment, and I'm under the impression that it's already been shared. I move that motion CPC-10, proposing in paragraph (c) to amend clause 15 of Bill C-34 by replacing line 26 on page 8, be amended by replacing the word “review” with the following:

review, provided that the imposition of interim conditions does not introduce significant new risks of injury to national security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There is a subamendment on the floor. I believe it has been circulated. I'll make sure that it is sent again, but for everyone's benefit, essentially it's at paragraph (c).

If I understood you correctly, Mr. Gaheer, after “review” there would be a comma and “provided that the imposition of interim conditions does not introduce significant new risks of injury to national security”. I believe members have received and will receive the exact wording of the subamendment to CPC-10 that MP Gaheer is proposing.

We can open the floor on the subamendment if there are questions and comments. We will wait one second.

I understand that it has been received by all. Are there any questions or comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

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

I'm trying to read it and compare notes. Is this substituting for my change or is it...? I'm trying to figure out where it goes.

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

It will go in paragraph (c), to amend clause 15 by replacing line 26 on page 8.

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

It doesn't say what I—

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

If you look at your amendment, it says “that could arise during that review”, so it will just continue after “review” with a comma and “provided....”

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

The one I got is still the corruption one, unless I'm reading my email wrong here.

Oh, here we go. Okay. I've got it.

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

That's provided during the review and then a continuation before the period....

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

It's just an addition. Could the officials explain a little more about the risk that you're trying to...?

[Mark Schaan]

It's mandating the imposition or deletion of interim conditions, essentially. There are examples—for instance, on national security cases—where interim conditions may not be appropriate.

For instance, if it's a transaction involving the purchase of a business with a location that is sensitive due to its proximity to a sensitive site, if that transaction hasn't closed, there would be no appropriate interim conditions. The only thing that's appropriate in that review would essentially be the final conditions.

There would be a national security risk during the review if we were to have interim conditions disclosed, until the determination has actually been made. This essentially would ensure that there's a consideration of national security risk about the interim conditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schaan.

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

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

I'm just trying to understand, because the principal thing that we're doing in ours is changing “may” to “shall”. We're not really changing a lot of the other section in the act that Bill C-34 amends.

I don't mind. I'm just trying to understand that this is just an addition, not because my proposed amendment is causing a concern. You're just providing a little more clarity.

[Mark Schaan]

Your amendment mandates interim conditions. What we believe this subamendment would do is essentially balance the mandate for interim conditions with as long as they don't cause “injury to national security”.

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

Because it would be public—

[Mark Schaan]

Exactly.

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

That's the issue. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

If there are no more questions or comments on the subamendment proposed by MP Gaheer, I will put it to a vote unless I have consensus on the subamendment.

I'm looking around the room. We have a consensus.

Mr. Boulerice also seems to be in favour of the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)