Evidence of meeting #84 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
If there are no more comments on this we are voting on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Gaheer, reference number 12546585, that was circulated to members via email.
4 p.m.
An hon. member
It's not in our email.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Give me a second to make sure that we have the right reference numbers for the amendments we are voting on because the one I just received....
Mr. Gaheer, to be sure, is this the correct version, the one that was sent by the clerk, reference number 12546585?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
If it's clear to all, I'll ask the clerk to proceed to a vote.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
That brings us back to NDP‑2, now as amended.
Seeing no further discussion, I will call the question on this amendment.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
On a point of order, I've just done a quick review of the package of amendments for the committee that was sent in late June, and I don't see this amendment in that, unless I'm missing it.
Who is it from? I've gone through it, and Mr. Turnbull said it was circulated then. I don't see it.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
The subamendment was properly presented, Mr. Perkins, and distributed. We can do forensics to look at the exact date on which it was first submitted, but I'm not sure that it's a useful use of committee time, so we'll leave it at that, if you don't mind, and move on to amendment CPC-5 on clause 12.
(On clause 12)
Mr. Perkins, go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
Bill C-34 doesn't do anything to trigger a national security review when purchases of strategic assets are made—such as IP data, mines, land or machinery—separate from the actual company itself. The current amendment seeks to expand the application of what constitutes an investment that is injurious to national security by expanding the application of a national security review to any acquisition of an asset made by SOEs of a Canadian business.
While Bill C-34 allows for the minister to conduct a national security review of acquisitions by non-Canadian companies, the bill does nothing to trigger a security review when strategic assets are purchased by a state-owned enterprise. The concern is supported by much of the evidence presented at INDU during the committee study and by witnesses on this bill. For instance, Jim Balsillie recommended that the bill should do more to protect assets deemed critical to Canada's security and prosperity by broadening the focus of any review to include assets of strategic technologies and industries.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We've all heard the terms of the proposed amendment to clause 12, CPC-5.
Mr. Gaheer, go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
This amendment, in my reading, expands the jurisdiction of the ICA national security review to asset sales by SOEs?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Including this amendment could be interpreted as narrowing the scope, as it's currently interpreted, but we can ask the experts if they believe so. I would also like to bring forward a subamendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
First, we'll go to our officials for the question you just asked, and then you can present your subamendment.
Mr. Schaan, go ahead.
4:10 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said in June, we have acted on cases that include the acquisition of assets of a Canadian company.
It is our interpretation and continuation of the implementation of the act that the study and application of the act to asset sales are already contemplated. I think our discussion in June was that this would be, again, helpfully clarified if it noted that this was, in fact, already within the jurisdiction of the act, because we've actually taken cases with this use case in mind.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you.
Mr. Gaheer still has the floor, Mr. Perkins, but I see that you have a question for the officials.
If you don't mind, Mr. Gaheer....
Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to clarify, where in the act does it say that asset sales are reviewable—in the act, not in policy or regulation?
4:10 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
As it was described in June, the outline of what is reviewable under the act is already determined to be set out in factors that are quite wide to allow for a wide array. You won't find specific references to particular technological terms or aspects in paragraph (b) in order to allow for the continuation of the act to apply in a whole host of use cases, including those of asset sales.
As I've indicated, we actually have proceeded in this domain, and it is not only our view but has been our action that the act already applies in this particular zone. We would just want to make sure that this call-out to this important aspect isn't actually at the cost of suggesting that it wasn't there before.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
This was another suspenders and belt one, which we talked about: We want, for greater certainty, to use words from the previous motion, for that to actually be in the act.
4:10 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
I realize our drafting conventions are annoying, but we just want to make sure that we preserve our capacities.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Mr. Chair, thank you.
I'm asking for a brief pause. There seems to be a little bit of confusion about what's been circulated and what has not. I'd like to speak to my colleagues, as well, so I'm asking for a brief pause.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Given that we've had two months away from the House and from the joys of Bill C-34, I will grant a very short pause because I believe some of these discussions could have happened before the committee.
I'll briefly suspend for two minutes.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Colleagues, we're going to resume, please.
We were on clause 12. I hope the confusion has dissipated and we're all on the same page.
We were at CPC-5 on clause 12. Is there any more discussion on CPC-5?
I have Mr. Perkins.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I don't know about this, but thank you, MP Turnbull, for the clarification.
This is the part where I'm not sure if it's in order. I know that another amendment is coming in the same area, and just in the consideration of whether it should be this one or the next one, my non-lawyer reading of it is that the coming amendment is actually a narrowing of this, because it's saying that it has to be the significant assets of a corporation, not just assets but “substantially all of the assets”. This is very different from the one we have.
To me, based on what Mr. Schaan said, it actually would be a narrowing over what exists in the act, but I'm not a lawyer.