Industry Committee on June 21st, 2023

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The following three amendments have the aim of increasing transparency and accountability. These really stem from what we heard from the witnesses here, as well as from members during various readings and consultations.

The first amendment being proposed would add, after line 15 on page 13, the following:

(3) Subparagraph 36(4)(e.2)(ii) that the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) authorized the investment, including if it did so on terms and conditions, or

This amendment, as I said earlier, aims to improve the transparency and accountability. It allows the minister to disclose that a final order authorized an investment, including if it was done on the basis of terms and conditions. I would invite our officials here today to maybe speak to how this change reaches that goal of transparency and accountability.

[Mark Schaan]

As noted, this amendment clarifies that the minister may disclose that a final order authorized an investment, including if that included terms and conditions. This is a clarification of what we believe to be the existing interpretation, but it ensures that we actually have a full understanding of the minister's ability to do this. The minister would, therefore, be allowed, as he communicated the conclusion of the NSIRA process, to note that there was an authorization for the investment and also to note the terms upon which it was reached.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Schaan.

Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you.

With regard to notifying on the reasons, does it only apply to authorizations, or does it also apply when the minister has decided to decline allowing the investment?

[Mark Schaan]

This is already applied to blocks. This is simply clarifying that it also applies to authorizations.

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

Do we not do this now?

[Mark Schaan]

We have not in the recent past announced when we would authorize investments, including on their conditions.

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

No, but this is authorizing giving it to government agencies. Is that right? As I read it, it allows the minister to disclose privileged information to foreign government agencies.

[Mark Schaan]

This is disclosure to the public.

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

It's not just about disclosing to foreign agencies. Am I reading the wrong Liberal amendment...?

Is it Liberal amendment 2?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes. It's LIB-2.

Go ahead, Madam Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

It's my understanding—I'll ask the officials to confirm this—that previously the act included some ambiguity as to whether the minister could disclose final orders if an investment was authorized with terms and conditions.

Is that indeed what we're trying to remove—that ambiguity?

[Mark Schaan]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Are there any more questions or comments on LIB‑2?

I will call the vote on LIB-2.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

We're still on clause 19. Are there other amendments?

Madam Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is a further amendment that, again, aims to increase the transparency and accountability around this. This amendment would allow the minister to disclose the names of companies that are subject to final national security orders.

The change that is being recommended is that Bill C-34 in clause 19 be amended by adding, after line 15 on page 13, the following:

(3) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.1):

(4.101) For greater certainty, when communicating or disclosing under paragraph (4)(e.2) the fact that an order was made under subsection 25.4(1), the Minister is not prohibited from communicating or disclosing the identity of the non-Canadian and of the Canadian business or entity referred to in paragraph 25.1(c) that is the subject of the order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Perkins.

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

On a point of order, Chair, while I think I agree with the intent, I think the parent rule applies on this amendment—doesn't it? Bill C-42 does not actually amend this clause in the actual Investment Canada Act, so I'm not sure that the actual proposed amendment is in order. There's no reference to this clause in the bill, as I understand it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, I will take your point of order under advisement and verify it with the legislative clerks.

All the amendments were thoroughly analyzed ahead of time to see if they were receivable or not. This was deemed receivable, but I will take it under advisement.

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

Yes. I'm just curious, because—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

In the meantime, Mr. Perkins, I will just move to Mr. Vis. He had his hand up before your point of order. Then I'll get back to you.

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

Sure. I'm just looking for consistency with the ones that were ruled out of order for the same reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Vis.

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

This is for the officials.

On the second part of the amendment, “the Minister is not prohibited from communicating or disclosing the identity of the non-Canadian and of the Canadian business or entity referred to in paragraph 25.1(c)”, isn't that already the case?

[Mark Schaan]

Again, Mr. Chair, this is a clarification of what we understand to be the existing interpretation. This is a power the minister has used. The minister has disclosed the names of companies that have been the subject of orders. This is simply ensuring the transparency standard that's been adopted is never open to ambiguity. This is clarifying that.