Industry Committee on Sept. 19th, 2023

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Nobody knows the bubble of Ottawa better than Mr. Perkins.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We're privileged to have him on this committee, then.

Without further ado, let's get back to Bill C-34.

As you might recall, colleagues, we were at new clause 8.1 and the NDP-2 proposal, which is at page 4.1 of your package.

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

Chair, I'd like to speak to that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I recognize Mr. Vis and then Mr. Gaheer.

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

Thank you.

In respect of clause 8.1, I'd like to move a subamendment, which reads as follows: “the effect of the investment on privacy interest, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, on the use and protection of personal information about Canadians; the effect of the investment on intellectual property interests including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, on rights relating to intellectual property whose development has been funded in whole or in part by the Government of Canada”.

During committee meetings, government officials warned members that listing individual factors in considering a net benefit review could potentially create the adverse effect of disallowing additional factors from being considered that aren't listed in the bill when conducting a net benefit review. This amendment seeks to address those concerns by broadening the examples covered under this section even if they are not specifically listed as examples, and in doing so will ensure that issues not listed under section 20 of the ICA are still considered when conducting a net benefit review, while also guaranteeing that both IP development and Canadian privacy are factors considered.

This was done in good faith to the NDP amendment to make sure that we could see the spirit of Mr. Masse's amendment pass with those concerns addressed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay.

We're now debating Mr. Vis's subamendment to NDP‑2.

Go ahead, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see this as a friendly amendment to what we're trying to get. I thank my colleagues for providing this to me in advance.

I don't have any further questions. I think Mr. Vis has explained the subamendment and, really, the amendment itself very well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Gaheer, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, we've had a summer, obviously, since we last debated this. I would like to get the expert's view on what the original amendment does and what Mr. Vis's subamendment does to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Schaan, go ahead.

[Mark Schaan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members.

If I understand the subamendment correctly, I think one of our concerns prior to the summer break was not to give the false impression or potentially confuse the situation that something that is already able to be considered is actually able to be considered.

I have two thoughts in the context of the subamendment. It is helpful in that it suggests that it's not without prejudice to the foregoing, as in it broadens the consideration. The contention, though, is that privacy matters and intellectual property matters are already factors eligible for consideration under net benefit reviews. It's less of a concern about whether or not it's only privacy and intellectual property—because we've listed them—and more actually that we might be undoing the generality of the current provisions that actually suggest that these are already reviewable factors. I think there had been some consideration, prior to the break, as to whether or not a “for greater certainty” clause could be clear that these are including but not limited to. I think that was potentially the spirit in which this was understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Gaheer, did you want to add anything?

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

Is there not a question of inadmissibility in regard to this amendment and subamendment?

[Mark Schaan]

I can't speak to the inadmissibility. I think there had been some consideration as to whether or not a further subamendment would actually simply make it very clear that these are factors that were not necessarily precluded from consideration but that could be or already were included.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Masse, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

There was that discussion on it. That's correct. Again, I think that's complementary to it. Without revisiting the whole debate, it was about those two issues becoming more dynamic in our current laws. We wanted to reinforce touching on them. We don't want to prejudice something else. I'm supportive of both of those initiatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Lemire, go ahead.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to know how that fits in with the measures related to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. How do we align the two acts? Is Canada being penalized?

[Mark Schaan]

If I understand the question correctly, Mr. Chair, it's about the role of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. There are support measures, but I don't see a connection between this proposal and the U.S. legislation.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I just want to make sure of one thing, given the protectionist measures that have been adopted and the negotiations with the United States and the Biden administration. Could an amendment like that undermine Canada's competitiveness or the protection of personal information, among other things, in Canada? It touches on a wide range of things.

[Mark Schaan]

I thank the member for his question.

I don't have a direct answer, because I don't know how this will directly affect Canada's relationship with the United States. However, privacy and intellectual property are now considered under the Investment Canada Act, without harming Canada's relationship with the United States.

The United States also has a different approach to intellectual property and privacy. At the moment, the way the two countries look at these two things is not disruptive to their relationship.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on the subamendment before we vote on it?

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want some clarification from Mr. Schaan

Do your comments imply that this subamendment would undermine the general nature of the net benefit review? Is that what I'm understanding? Am I understanding you correctly?