Industry Committee on March 11th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, that's a question. The minister will be here on Thursday. I don't want to suggest a question, but you may want to ask that of the minister, and the minister can describe what he can and cannot comment on.

With respect to your general comments about whether or not this is a good sale for Canada, obviously there's a lot of public information that can be accessed and asked about.

In terms of what specifically falls within the confidential commercial transaction and what falls outside of it in terms of public discourse on whether or not the sale is good, I can't say exactly where the line is on each and every question. That's why I said there are a lot of legitimate questions with respect to the general issue of whether or not this is a good sale in the long-term interests of Canada. That's a legitimate public policy question that members can ask of many witnesses.

In terms of the specific commercial transaction, the minister and other witnesses will then have the discretion to say they cannot answer a specific question, because it delves too much into the specifics of a commercial transaction. On another question, they may be able to answer.

Does that answer your concern?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I would rather have another answer but I will make do with that one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Carrie, please.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to comment. Mr. Vincent suggested that I might be evasive on this. I find that's a little dramatic and offensive at this stage of the game.

If you look at the timeline, Mr. Vincent, the announcement of the sale was January 8, which was a couple of months ago. There is a specific process in the Investment Canada Act, and if you don't like that process, that's something you may want to look at. But understand that it was announced on January 8, and I believe it was on February 6 that the 45 days started. So we have from February 6 until March 22. To make it clear, the minister is required, by law, to make a decision at the end of that period. He has to. His decision is either yes, no, or extend it for another 30 days. There's nothing evasive in that. That's the process he has to follow.

To go back, Mr. Cannis originally asked this committee what its role is. He said that we really didn't have a role in this. Madam Nash made a good point. Perhaps we should be kicking this over to foreign affairs to take a look at.

I'd like to clarify that there is not a sale yet; it's a proposed sale. Madam Nash, you said “the sale of”. There is no sale yet. The minister hasn't made a decision. We can't even get to the confidentiality part of the agreement on the net benefits. They're not allowed to discuss that. If they do, it's a criminal offence. This is the law and the process with the Investment Canada Act, which I think has been going on for the last 30 years.

Getting three ministers here within the next 16 days could be possible. We could ask. Reasonably speaking, I think we could get officials here quite quickly. I would like some clarification on when we would like to do this, because the reality is that the deadline for him to make a decision is March 22.

Today is Tuesday. We have Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and then there's a break. I think it would be interesting if we could come up with some substantial things that we can do here. We can ask if, when, and but, but the minister is going to be here on Thursday; we could ask him these questions.

If we want more information, it behooves the committee to actually sit down and ask when we want to do this. Do we want to do it tomorrow? Do we want to do it on Thursday or Friday? Are we going to come back during the break period, to get the members to reconvene? From a practical standpoint, do we have some ideas here?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

I have Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I agree with Ms. Nash in that only the ministers in these respective portfolios have the capacity to make the pertinent decisions. The public servants don't have that responsibility vested in them. They can make a recommendation to the minister, but ultimately the minister will make the decision based on a range of political and public policy inputs.

The ministers' accountability is to Parliament and, as such, to parliamentary committees. We have a responsibility to help uphold that accountability. In doing anything less, we're not actually doing our job.

I think it's a very reasonable request that the minister extend it by 30 days, given the gravity of this transaction. He has that power to do that. That would afford us the capacity to function effectively as a committee and to demand that accountability.

We're very close to where we ought to move to votes. I guess we'd start with...which amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We would start with Mr. Carrie's amendment, and then we would go to discussion of your amendment.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But I do have two more speakers.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Okay, certainly. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

I have Ms. Nash. Ms. Nash passes.

I have Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the questions that come to mind—and this is not so much a statement, but more a fact-finding question—is about another act here, the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, which also has requirements and obligations that appear to apply to the sale of this company. Which act takes precedence when the two of them contradict in terms of timelines--the Investment Canada Act and the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act?

Clearly, when we looked at some of the requirements of the acts, one of which we understand to be more in the realm of foreign affairs, we have the Investment Canada Act imposing a very specific timeline and certain requirements of confidentiality, but at the same time we have another act of Parliament requiring that certain things be satisfied before a transaction of this sort can proceed.

So my question would be, does one take precedence over the other, and how could we look at this question of timelines with consideration to this Remote Sensing Space Systems Act as well? As I understand it, Mr. Chair, the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act was passed in accord with the development of RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2. I stand to be corrected on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Stanton, admittedly I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is that the Investment Canada Act would take precedence. I think this is one of the issues or questions we would have for the ministers or officials, whoever we decide to call.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Respectfully, Mr. Chair, as I tried to outline, there is a process here. And Mr. Brison, I think everybody is aware of what you stated, but if you'd brought it up 30 days ago—I believe it was announced on January 8, as I said—we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

What I'm hearing from the committee is that it appears people in this committee want to hear the details. What I'm trying to convey is that those details are exactly what is privileged under the Investment Canada Act.

What's important or what we can look at, I think, is the actual contract signed by the Liberals in 1998. I think if the officials are here promptly, we could get some of that information. Realistically speaking, as I said, I'm not sure about getting three ministers here within that timeframe. I still haven't found out when you want to have all of this actually occur.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

Concerning the timeframe in the motion, your amendment crosses out the words “before a decision concerning the sale is rendered under the Investment Canada Act”. That would result in a variable timeframe, depending on whether there's an extension or not. But as I said before, it does help the chair to have some timeframe for identification.

I have Monsieur Vincent, but I first want to read what everyone has been given by the researchers, in terms of what can be released or not:

As provided by the Act, all information received by the Minister, or their staff, from a Canadian or non-Canadian business during the review of a proposed transaction, is deemed privileged information which cannot be disclosed to the public through direct communication or by the inspection of documents. Further, there are only three types of information that may be released by the Minister without the written consent of MDA or ATK, a) publicly available information, b) information in an approval notice sent by the Minister, and c) information in a demand sent by the Minister.

So this is very clear in terms of what information we can get and what information we cannot get. I hope that's helpful in terms of clarification.

I have Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

My question is for Mr. Carrie.

Why is everyone so interested in this matter suddenly? Two weeks ago, we talked about getting witnesses here but, in fact, nothing was done, except by Ms. Nash. The government members did not seem very interested but, suddenly, when we start talking about inviting the ministers, they want to call other witnesses and experts. Why did Mr. Carrie and the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology suddenly change their minds? Suddenly, they want to start an inquiry about the sale of MDA whereas they did not seem to be too interested two weeks ago. They did not suggest any names of witnesses but, today, they want to extend the study.

That is all I want to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

As the chair, I should clarify that there were one or two witnesses suggested by Mr. Carrie, but they were unavailable to come that day, on March 5. I would point out that in my understanding, though they were amended, both motions passed the committee.

That may help to clarify some of it, Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

For the Minister of Industry, there were no other witnesses. In her first motion, Ms. Nash wanted to have the Minister of Industry to appear before the committee. Then, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was mentioned but, in the beginning, we wanted to meet with the Minister of industry to question him about the sale of MDA.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

With respect to the meeting on March 5, we had Mr. Byers, Mr. Staples, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Garneau. There were two other witnesses whom we asked to appear--I don't have their biographies here, only their names--but they were unable to appear that day.

One of the reasons I'd like to add the phrase “and other expert witnesses” is that it allows me, as the chair, to not just limit it to ministers. If someone else who asks to appear is an expert, as Marc Garneau is, or someone else, or if a member of this committee submits a name to me of someone who is considered an expert in this field, I want the ability, as chair, to add them as a witness.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, on that, I've made the case about why I think we need to have the ministers here, and I'm not opposed to other expert witnesses. What I would raise caution around is that I think a key thing is to have these witnesses and the testimony before the minister makes his decision. And while it is the minister's decision to extend the period of review for an additional 30 days, I would like to have further testimony available to us as quickly as possible. I don't think anyone here is anticipating six months of hearings so that we can fully examine this and all become experts in space technology. We're rapidly trying to become as familiar as we can with as much as we can in order to fully understand the implications of this potential sale.

There is a balance to be struck in how many witnesses we call, so again I want to make the case that we should have ministers here. There may be other key experts that we want to have, but I want to underscore that we should have that testimony prior to the minister's making his decision, again, while recognizing that he is the one who decides if he will make the 30-day extension.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I do want to get your feedback on this, because the challenge for the chair is that we are at March 11 today. Our meeting for Thursday is already set with the minister. Obviously we don't want to change that, because there are questions for him on this and other topics. So we have tomorrow. If we invite ministers for tomorrow, the chances of getting them are next to nil. We have next week, which is a break week. I don't know if members all want to come back next week. We can come back if we want. I won't be here, but members are free to be here.

I'm not sensing a strong desire to come back.

Let me finish, and I'll ask you to respond.

Before making a decision concerning it, the committee may actually want to identify a couple of days, maybe April 2 and 9, for discussion, for expert witnesses--whether they're ministers or their officials, that's up to the committee to decide--for hearings on this matter. That way, at the meeting on Thursday, obviously members are free to ask what they want. But clearly there is going to be some pressure on the minister to extend it to the 45-day period. If we have two hearings, say on April 2 and 9, that would be before April 22. It seems to me we can accomplish things that way. I think we can probably get an agreement around that.

Would that be okay with you, Ms. Nash?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, it would, if we can get the witnesses in before April 22.

I believe we also have one hour on Thursday. The minister is only coming for one hour, as I understand it, and there is a second hour there, if there were other witnesses available. I know we had slotted that time for the service sector study, but it's something that's in camera and therefore flexible in terms of the timing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It is flexible, although I suspect, as usually happens with every minister meeting, that a member of the opposition will ask the minister to stay longer. So I always like to leave a bit of leeway.

If the committee decides they want to finish with the minister promptly after one hour and go to this, that's up to the committee. Again, it's challenging in terms of it being two days' notice to get another minister here.

Anyway, those were all the speakers I had.

Mr. Carrie.