INDU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Mark Schaan answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 7 of the Bill.
“(2) Section 15 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 15(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) Despite the limits set out in subsections 14(3), 14.1(1) and (1.1) and 14.11(1) and (2), an investment is reviewable under this Part if
(a) the non-Canadian making the investment is a state-owned enterprise or is controlled by a state-owned enterprise;
(b) the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, is of the opinion that a review of the investment is in the public interest; and
(c) the Governor in Council issues an order for the review within 21 days after the day on which the non-Canadian gives notice of the investment to the Director.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:26 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:31 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 7 was allowed to stand.
Clause 8 carried.
On new Clause 8.1,
Brian Masse moved, — That Bill C-34 be amended by adding after line 26 on page 4 the following new clause:“8.1 Section 20 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(c.1) the effect of the investment on the use and protection of personal information about Canadians;
(c.2) the effect of the investment on any rights relating to intellectual property whose development has been funded, in whole or in part, by the Government of Canada;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Philip Lawrence appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 5;
NAYS: Bernard Généreux, Philip Lawrence, Sébastien Lemire, Brian Masse, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 6.
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:56 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:59 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, new Clause 8.1 was allowed to stand.
On Clause 9,
Ryan Williams moved, — That Bill C-34, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 6 the following:“(7) Section 21 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (8):
(8.1) The Minister shall provide reasons for any decision made under subsection 21(1), 22(2) or 23(3) explaining the factors taken into account by the Minister to conclude that he or she is satisfied or is not satisfied that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada, and shall publish in the Canada Gazette any order imposing terms and conditions on the investment implemented or proposed by a non-Canadian.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 9 carried.
On new Clause 9.1,
Brian Masse moved, — That Bill C-34 be amended by adding after line 26 on page 6 the following new clause:“9.1 Section 23.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:
23.1 The Minister shall provide reasons for any decision made under paragraph 23(3)(b), and the Minister may provide reasons for any decision made under subsection 21(1) or 22(2) or paragraph 23(3)(a). The reasons shall include information on any representations made or undertakings submitted by the applicant.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“9.1 Section 23.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:
23.1 The Minister shall provide reasons for any decision made under subsection 21(1), 22(2) or 23(3) explaining the factors taken into account by the Minister to conclude that he or she is satisfied or is not satisfied that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada, and shall publish in the Canada Gazette any order imposing terms and conditions on the investment implemented or proposed by a non-Canadian.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Brad Vis appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 6;
NAYS: Bernard Généreux, Philip Lawrence, Brian Masse, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 5.
Clause 10 carried.
Clause 11 carried.
“manner described in section 28;
(b.1) if the non-Canadian is a state-owned enterprise, to acquire any of the assets of a Canadian business; or”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:15 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:27 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 12 was allowed to stand.
Clause 13 carried.
On Clause 14,
Rick Perkins moved, — That Bill C-34, in Clause 14, be amended(a) by replacing line 26 on page 7 with the following:
“25.2 (1) If the Governor in Council has reasonable grounds to be‐”
(b) by replacing line 28 on page 7 with the following:
“jurious to national security, the Minister shall, within the”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Rick Perkins appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 6;
NAYS: Bernard Généreux, Philip Lawrence, Brian Masse, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 5.
(a) by replacing line 28 on page 7 with the following:
“jurious to national security, the Minister shall, within the”
(b) by replacing line 31 on page 7 with the following:
“is to be made under subsection 25.3(1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ryan Williams and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bernard Généreux, Brian Masse, Rick Perkins, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 5;
NAYS: Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 6.
At 7:01 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.