Publication Search

Thank you, Chair.

This is directed to Ms. Meyerhoffer at CORE.

Ms. Meyerhoffer, I'm on the CORE website, quickly reading a few things.

The first question I wanted to reference is about a policy paper put out by CORE in terms of the EU commitment to introduce legally binding corporate human rights and environmental due diligence, and the implications for Canada. You referenced that in your answer to Mr. Chong.

Can you elaborate on that policy brief at all, please?

As a follow-up, in terms of the complaints process, I think you mentioned there were 13 complaints, and I think I saw the number 11 on the site.

Due to the inability to actually access the supply chain, or to actually be on the ground in certain jurisdictions, how difficult is it to reach a conclusion in terms of your investigations?

Thank you.

Do I have another minute or two left? Okay.

To the folks over at the development finance institution, you mentioned a proposed $750 million. What's the geographic spread of those investments that you've undertaken?

In terms of the due diligence involved prior to making these investments, are these equity or debt investments?

Who would be your partners on the ground? Obviously, you wouldn't have individuals in every country or for every opportunity, but who are your partners on the ground when you are undertaking the due diligence in the ultimate investment decisions?

That's it for me, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, Commissioner and team. Thank you for your service and for what you do, not only for MPs but for all Canadians.

On the report on the emissions reduction through greenhouse gas regulations, the first thing I'd like to do is thank you for acknowledging the more than 100 policy measures that our government has put in place to combat climate change. They are obviously layered. There are many regulations, but it is the right direction in terms of combatting climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions overall. I think you put that in context in paragraph 5.13, if I'm not mistaken.

From that, I have two questions in my time permitted. The first one is on paragraph 5.57 with regard to our electrical grid and the ongoing phase-out of coal-fired electricity. I believe the target is 2035 when we'll have an electrical grid that is clean in the context of non-emitting GHGs.

On 5.57, please elaborate further in terms of:

Environment and Climate Change Canada established performance targets, indicators, and expected outcomes for the electricity sector regulations we examined and that the regulations had achieved their targets to date.

Thank you.

My second topic relates to methane. Methane has been getting a lot of press, rightly so, for many reasons in the last several months and over the last few years. One thing we saw even during the COVID downturn and the freezing of economies is that worldwide methane emissions increased in the United States and so forth. As you say in paragraph 5.61, “methane is a potent greenhouse gas with at least 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period”.

I've read this part, and I've read some stuff online with regard to methane. We have put in place—a number of countries have put in place—measures to reduce methane emission. That is going to be one large aspect of meeting GHG emission targets for any country.

Is it a matter, in your view, Commissioner, that the data being collected needs to be strengthened or that the measures in place need to be strengthened or both? It is an economic win to reduce methane emissions and an environmental win to reduce methane emissions as we move forward.

In terms of measuring methane, in 5.76 you speak to, as a policy point, a bottom-up approach versus a top-down approach. It seems that one captures more than the other. Is there anything you can elaborate on that, and is there anything else you could forward to me or the members to understand how we better measure methane emissions?

Thank you, Chair.

It's wonderful to join the committee this afternoon. I want to say thank you for the opportunity and also applaud the committee, all individuals here from all parties, for the great work they've done on this bill.

If I can just go back in time a little bit, in my first session of Parliament, I had the good fortune of participating in a study entitled “Confronting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: Moving Canada Forward”. It was published in November of 2018 and we travelled to the U.K.; Washington, D.C.; Toronto; and New York. We had extensive missions. There was a rotation between the Senate and the House every five years when this study was taking place, and the first recommendation was—I'm just looking at it now—to implement a public registry, a beneficial ownership registry with the threshold of 25%. I was reading a list of recommendations just now, so I'm very happy to see that this is going forward. I applaud the chair and Minister Champagne and the entire team for the work that's been done. This is a huge step forward.

Sasha, I kind of nodded to you when you were giving your comments. I also had the good fortune of growing up and living in British Columbia before I moved to Ontario and became an MP among other things. I wonder if you could elaborate on just how big a step the implementation of this public beneficial registry is in combatting money laundering, especially within the real estate sector in British Columbia.

With regard to the protection of privacy, there have been concerns about how we strike the balance between protecting privacy and implementing the public beneficial ownership registry.

As I understand the situation, we are a fiscal federation and we do need the provinces to get on board. I think it's a ninety-ten split, if I'm not mistaken, so we do need the provinces on board on this as well. Can you speak to the privacy considerations and the balance there, please?

That's for either you, Sasha, or James.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Happy Friday to you.

This has been a very important conversation, a very insightful one.

I want to ask Ms. Dojack this first.

You used the word “factors” when you talked about looking at a mini transaction and acquisition and determining that the purchaser is attached to a non-market entity, a sovereign wealth fund or a government-backed organization. How much weight do you put in that factor in terms of doing the analysis? I think today, when you look around the world, whether the transaction is $30 million or whether it's $3 billion, the IP attached to the transaction, the state actor who is the acquirer.... That, to me, raises a lot of questions, particularly where we are in the world.

Can you talk about that for a second, please?

There is this term that's used, “the golden share”. An entity, a government, may own 5% of a company, effectively blocking the company from being taken over, and it's used quite effectively around the world.

In this case, say company A based in China could have a 5%, a 10% or a 3% equity stake in company B based in another country, and that company can then purchase assets abroad, but de facto, even though company A only owns a small percentage, it has much influence on company B. I think about that. To me, that scenario is there.

I want to ask a second follow-up question.

The Investment Canada Act.... There is a bill going through Parliament. How different would the analysis be today or ex ante? How different would the analysis be going forward from what is done under the existing or the old Investment Canada Act in this type of transaction?

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, folks, to the committee today.

When did you conclude the acquisition of the Domtar Corporation?