Evidence of meeting #117 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cptpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Policy Advisor, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
The amendment is to the Trade-marks Act, so it would apply to any goods being imported from any country, yes.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Do you see that we're broadening the scope in a significant way, or do you see this as a reflection of an update that's necessary? That's what I'm gleaning from your—
Senior Policy Advisor, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Certainly the Combating Counterfeit Products Act amendments were brought forth in 2014 in response to significant concerns with respect to counterfeit goods and the dangers, potentially, with counterfeit goods.
This amendment doesn't significantly increase the scope, because we're still looking at situations in which ordinary consumers would be confused and think that the illegitimate good was a legitimate good, potentially to their harm.
It's not a large change. In addition to that, the manner in which we have implemented, which we were able to do through the negotiated text in the agreement, is very discrete. In the case of these confusingly similar goods, the amendment we've made is merely to instances of a rights holder going to court to try to suspend a specific shipment that's coming through. That's as opposed to amendments to our broader border measures, which relate to counterfeit and pirated goods and the border guards are looking at all commercial shipments that are coming through. This is a very discrete amendment to a very discrete court proceeding that rights holders have access to.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Shall clause 17 carry?
(Clause 17 agreed to )
Shall clause 18 carry?
(Clause 18 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 19)
Shall clause 19 carry?
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
On page 7, clause 19 looks like a very technical change to the Investment Canada Act, and you referenced it, Ms. Hembroff, in your remarks. Also, on page 83, in clause 48, we see another amendment to this act. I'm wondering if you can explain these changes.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, and Deputy Chief Negotiator, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
We're just bringing forward our next person.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
That's fine. I think what I'll say, then, while you're getting someone forward, is that under the original TPP, there was a lot of public concern about the changes that were happening in this act. The NDP raised them in the House. We're talking about the threshold for what foreign takeovers Canada would review. To us in the NDP, this clearly means there would be less oversight and more potential foreign takeovers.
My question, probably a sub-question, is this: what is the threshold now, and is it still increasing to $1 billion next year? I think you referenced it in your opening remarks.
Mehmet Karman Senior Policy Analyst, Investment Review Branch, Department of Industry
Regarding the first question, the threshold will be raised to $1.5 billion for CPTPP countries, and that's for net benefit.
I just want to make it clear that there are two different kinds of reviews in the Investment Canada Act. There's net benefit and national security. In national security, there is no monetary threshold. Any investment can be reviewed for national security purposes, but for net benefit, you're right: a change in threshold from $1 billion to $1.5 billion would mean that an investment of, for example, $1.2 billion would no longer be reviewed under net benefit from CPTPP countries.
As it relates to the second clause, clause 48, the purpose of that is a transitional provision, essentially. We discussed earlier about the timing of the CPTPP coming into force. If there was an investment being considered by the minister that had been made by—let's take as an example a Singaporean investor—between the time that they ratified the agreement, which has already happened, and by the time we ratify it, and that amount was again in that range, this transitional provision would be deemed to have not been filed. It would be treated as if it was now below the threshold, which is the new higher threshold.
Senior Policy Analyst, Investment Review Branch, Department of Industry
I'm hoping that I'm making myself clear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Shall clause 19 carry?
(Clause 19 agreed to)
Folks, we're going to stop there. It's been a very productive, busy day. We got up to 20 done. We've got about 30 more to do Tuesday, plus we're going to come back to clause 12 for Ms. Ramsey on Tuesday also.
There's just a little bit of housekeeping here. There's some discussion of how we'll be dealing with things next week. Tuesday we're going to try to finish this. We're thinking of getting the witnesses on the tariffs on steel and aluminum starting Tuesday, October 2. That's when we're going to start with the witnesses. I encourage everybody to get their witnesses in. That leaves Thursday open next week, probably, and I think Simon has mentioned that he's going to have the Pacific Alliance Agreement ready for Thursday.
That said, we'll see you all Tuesday.
The meeting is adjourned.