Industry Committee on June 19th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

On my list I have Mr. Vis, Mr. Boulerice, Mr. Généreux and Mr. Fillmore.

I would just respectfully remind members that we are now not on amendment CPC-9 but on the subamendment, in which Mr. Fillmore has proposed changing “prosecuted” to “convicted”. My understanding also is that there's support for amendment CPC-9, but we're on the subamendment right now. If it's not on the subamendment, we'll get back to the amendment once the subamendment has been decided upon.

Mr. Vis, do you want to wait until we come back?

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

I'm going to speak to the subamendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our newest members of the committee, who will be with us for many months to come. It's great getting to know you guys, and I'm looking forward to many months of deliberation over this bill.

The terms “convicted” and “prosecuted” are related to the legal process, but they refer to different stages and outcomes of that process. Would that be correct?

[Mark Schaan]

That's correct.

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

“Prosecuted” would refer to the action taken by the state to bring criminal charges against a corporation. Is that correct?

[Mark Schaan]

That's correct.

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

When a company is prosecuted, it means they are officially accused of committing a crime and are subject to legal proceedings.

[Mark Schaan]

That's correct.

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

Okay.

The prosecution presents evidence and arguments to prove that the accused, in this case, corporation...beyond a reasonable doubt—

[Mark Schaan]

That would depend on the jurisdiction.

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

Okay. That's perfect.

The objective is a conviction. A conviction, on the other hand, refers to the legal determination of guilt made by a court or a jury.

[Mark Schaan]

It depends on the jurisdiction.

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

That's generally speaking, in legal theory.

[Mark Schaan]

That's generally speaking, yes.

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

If a company is convicted, that means it has been found guilty of a crime by a judge or a jury, either through a trial or as a result of a guilty plea.

[Mark Schaan]

It would depend on the jurisdiction.

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

Okay.

A conviction typically follows the prosecution's successful presentation of evidence and the defence's failure to sufficiently challenge or refute that evidence.

[Mark Schaan]

Again, it would depend on the jurisdiction.

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

Once convicted, would the company face penalties, such as imprisonment of certain directors of the company, fines, probation or other consequences, as determined by said law and said jurisdiction?

[Mark Schaan]

Depending on the jurisdiction, it might, yes.

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

In the context of this bill here, when we go back to when we wrote this amendment, and now, as we discuss the subamendment, it really comes down to what a government should do to prevent foreign investment from a company that either has a poor human rights record or, as we have clarified now, has been convicted or prosecuted of a heinous crime in another country.

When Canadians think about the act we're discussing today, they want to make sure our elected representatives and the officials in their respective departments have the tools they need to sufficiently protect Canadians from undue harm in cases of business activities.

Governments, in general, have a number of ways they can look at this. One pertains to legal and regulatory measures that we're discussing today. Based on our conversation last week with Phil Lawrence, we had a great debate about whether we can have positive lists, or positive determinations, put into our legislation to ensure we receive the outcomes that people want. I'm glad the government is willing to work with us on bringing this forward.

This is what I'm scared about through this whole process—not any of you specifically but regarding due diligence in screening. That's where Canadians really want us to home in on what we can do to improve due diligence in screening as it relates to the review of possible investments in Canada. Of course, when other states take seriously egregious actions, we can blacklist them. We can put up different tariffs, and we can seize their assets. The Government of Canada holds that right, but when we're looking to see investment flow into Canada, the due diligence of screening is essential to what people want.

A clause like this one, as amended by the government side, will really provide a lot of assurances to Canadians that we're moving in a direction with a more direct law that is clearly understood and clearly articulated. Canadians can hold us as elected officials to account to make sure we get this right, so we're not going to see more cases in Canada—in British Columbia, for example—of companies buying up long-term care homes and treating seniors like crap, which I believe constitutes a crime. I don't think anyone was ever convicted in those situations.

We have a really big responsibility here to get this right. I'm glad we're working towards that level of transparency.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Vis, for such a clear exposé.

I will now turn to Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find the subamendment that has been proposed very worthwhile and important. In our justice system, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I think it's important to make that distinction and to be able to say, not only here but abroad as well, that just because a person is prosecuted doesn't mean that they have been found guilty.

If a person is prosecuted for acts of corruption, we can trust in the Canadian legal system enough to say that certain elements must lead people to believe that it's worth taking that person to court and putting them on trial. We're talking about here or abroad. If a person is prosecuted in Russia, in the United Arab Emirates, or in a country where democracy or the judicial system is more or less formal, what happens then?

Is it true that some people could be excluded because they are victims of frivolous lawsuits?

I'd like to hear Mr. Schaan's comments on that.

[Mark Schaan]

Amendment CPC‑9, as drafted, indicates that a decision would be made by a court of any country in the world. That would apply to all territories, and it might include the ones you mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schaan.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

We're still discussing the subamendment to CPC‑9, as Mr. Fillmore indicated.

Is there any further debate on the subamendment? If not, I will put it to a vote, unless there is unanimous consent.

[An hon. member]

I'd like a recorded vote.