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 14 of the Bill.
On Clause 14,
Rick Perkins moved, — That Bill C-34, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 7 the following:“(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), the fact that a non-Canadian has previously been prosecuted, within or outside Canada, for an offence involving an act of corruption constitutes, by itself, reasonable grounds.”
Debate arose thereon.
Andy Fillmore moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “prosecuted” with the word “convicted”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Andy Fillmore and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Alexandre Boulerice, Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 7;
NAYS: Bernard Généreux, Rick Perkins, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 4.
The question was put on the amendment of Rick Perkins, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Alexandre Boulerice, Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Bernard Généreux, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Rick Perkins, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 11;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 14, as amended, carried.
On Clause 15,
Rick Perkins moved, — That Bill C-34, in Clause 15, be amended(a) by replacing line 17 on page 8 with the following:
“security, the Minister shall make an order within the pre‐”
(b) by replacing line 19 on page 8 with the following:
“(1.1) The Minister shall, by order, impose interim condi‐”
(c) by replacing line 26 on page 8 with the following:
“that could arise during that review. The Minister shall al‐”
Debate arose thereon.
Iqwinder Gaheer moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “review” the following: “, provided that the imposition of interim conditions does not introduce significant new risks of injury to national security.”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Perkins, as amended, and it was agreed to.
(a) by adding after line 18 on page 8 the following:
“(1.01) The Minister shall make an order under subsection (1) if the investment is proposed or implemented by a non-Canadian that is a state-owned enterprise or is controlled by such an enterprise and involves the acquisition, in whole or in part, of a foreign entity that, as a result of an investment that was authorized under this Act, controls a Canadian business.”
(b) by adding after line 37 on page 9 the following:
“(6.1) If the Minister refers to the Governor in Council under subparagraph 25.3(6)(a)(i) an investment that is proposed or implemented by a non-Canadian that is a state-owned enterprise or is controlled by such an enterprise and involves the acquisition, in whole or in part, of a foreign entity that, as a result of an investment that was authorized under this Act, controls a Canadian business, the Minister shall recommend to the Governor in Council that an order be made under paragraph 25.4(1)(a) or, if the investment has been implemented, under paragraph 25.4(1)(c).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Perkins and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Alexandre Boulerice, Bernard Généreux, Rick Perkins, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 5;
NAYS: Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 6.
(a) by adding after line 18 on page 8 the following:
“(1.01) The Minister shall make an order under subsection (1) if the investment is proposed or implemented by a non-Canadian that is a state-owned enterprise or is controlled by such an enterprise and involves the acquisition, in whole or in part, of a foreign entity that, as a result of an investment that was authorized under this Act, controls a Canadian business.”
(b) by adding after line 37 on page 9 the following:
“(6.1) If the Minister refers to the Governor in Council under subparagraph 25.3(6)(a)(i) an investment that is proposed or implemented by a non-Canadian that is a state-owned enterprise or is controlled by such an enterprise and involves the acquisition, in whole or in part, of a foreign entity that, as a result of an investment that was authorized under this Act, controls a Canadian business, the Minister shall recommend to the Governor in Council that an order be made under paragraph 25.4(1)(a) or, if the investment has been implemented, under paragraph 25.4(1)(c).
(6.2) If an order is not made under paragraph 25.4(1)(a) or (c), the Minister shall cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a statement of the reasons for not making the order.”
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.
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: Alexandre Boulerice, Bernard Généreux, Rick Perkins, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 5.
“(1.01) In determining whether to make an order under subsection (1), the Minister shall have regard to whether the non-Canadian could, as a result of the investment, have access to personal information about Canadians or have the right to use intellectual property whose development has been funded, in whole or in part, by the Government of Canada.”
Debate arose thereon.
Rick Perkins moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “For greater certainty,” before the words “In determining”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Rick Perkins and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bernard Généreux, Sébastien Lemire, Rick Perkins, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 5;
NAYS: Alexandre Boulerice, Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 6.
The question was put on the amendment of Alexandre Boulerice and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Alexandre Boulerice, Bernard Généreux, Rick Perkins, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 5;
NAYS: Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 6.
“(1.01) In determining whether to make an order under subsection (1), the Minister shall have regard to whether the non-Canadian could, as a result of the investment, have the right to use intellectual property whose development has been funded, in whole or in part, by the Government of Canada.”
The question was put on the amendment of Rick Perkins and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bernard Généreux, Rick Perkins, Brad Vis, Ryan Williams — 4;
NAYS: Alexandre Boulerice, Andy Fillmore, Iqwinder Gaheer, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Francesco Sorbara, Tony Van Bynen — 7.
Clause 15, as amended, carried.
On Clause 16,
Rick Perkins moved, — That Bill C-34, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 10 the following:“(2) Section 25.4 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) If the investment would give the non-Canadian the right to use intellectual property whose development has been funded, in whole or in part, by the Government of Canada, an order made under subsection (1) may require any person or entity from whom or which the Canadian business or the entity referred to in paragraph 25.1(c) is being or has been acquired to repay all or part of any such funding it received.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:32 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.