Industry Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Maybe. I leave it up to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's your amendment, not mine.

I have more speakers. If you want, Madame Brunelle, we can continue on the amendment and you can write something down and decide exactly where you want to put it.

Mr. Brison.

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

Madame Brunelle, while you were speaking, I jotted down a few notes. I think we're on the same page.

The amendment would be something to this effect:

and that the Committee strongly recommend that the Industry Minister exercise his right to extend the current forty-five (45) days period of the Investment Canada Act review by thirty (30) days in order to enable a more thorough evaluation of the transaction in terms of the net benefit test to Canada.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I support the motion drafted by Mr. Brison. Great minds think alike.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Could you just read it again, Mr. Brison?

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

In French or English?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

In French, please.

[Some members]

Oh!

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

That is not a problem. It is important for Mrs. Brunelle to have a chance to practice her English.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You can read it in English.

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

and that the Committee strongly recommend the Industry Minister exercise his right to extend the current forty-five (45) day period of the Investment Canada review of the transaction by thirty (30) days

The committee can help in terms of the verbiage around the Investment Canada Act review, that part of it.

Should I start again?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes.

This is at the end of the motion.

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

and that the Committee strongly recommend the Industry Minister exercise his right to extend the current forty-five (45) days period of the Investment Canada Act review

—that's where I may need your help, in terms of the exact verbiage—

by an additional thirty (30) days in order to enable a more thorough evaluation of the transaction in terms of the net benefit test to Canada.

[Dan Shaw, Committee Researcher]

Why not just stop at “30 days”? It's obvious why you want it, is it not?

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

After 11 years in this business, to me nothing is obvious anymore.

I like the clarification, but if it's just as strong without, I'm fine either way. That would make Madam Nash's motion more realistic, given the timelines, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That subamendment is in order, so we'll now speak to the subamendment.

We'll start with Mr. Hanger.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I guess my comments would reflect on both the subamendment and the amendment.

Going to this one point of the extension, I'm trusting that the extension will allow for the point that was brought up in the amendment, where departmental officials--and this is the rationale put forward by my colleague Mr. Carrie--would be able to provide detailed technical knowledge about the history of MDA's relationship with the Government of Canada.

Nowhere has there been any mention in the original motion, amendment, or subamendment of CSA's involvement. It has a history that probably should be defined somewhere in the evaluation that's before the committee. I think there's an issue of past, present, and future where CSA plays a role.

I'm curious as to why CSA does not appear in the motion, amendment, or subamendment--a briefing or some expert information coming from that agency.

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

The Canadian Space Agency. That's a very constructive amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have not heard from anyone from CSA currently. We've heard from Marc Garneau, former president, but we haven't heard from anyone....

I'm sensing the will of the committee is that this would be acceptable.

Ms. Nash.

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

I'd like a clarification. We're dealing with a subamendment put forward by Mr. Brison on an amendment put forward by Mr. Carrie.

I would like clarification of that, because one could support the subamendment but be opposed to the amendment. I think it's important to clarify exactly what piece we are discussing at this point in time. That will affect what remarks I make.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's a good point, Ms. Nash.

Technically we can consider Mr. Brison's subamendment as a subamendment of Mr. Carrie's amendment, but my view and I think the view of the clerk is that perhaps we should deal with the two of them separately.

Is that okay with the committee, that we deal with one amendment? Let's consider it an amendment. Let's deal with Mr. Carrie's amendment first and either approve it or not. Then we'll move to Mr. Brison's amendment. They've both been accepted by the chair.

So we'll deal with Mr. Carrie's amendment, then we'll deal with Mr. Brison's amendment, and then we'll deal with the main motion.

I have Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was wondering whether we could clarify a couple of things.

When the former Liberal PS for industry, Mr. Cannis, was here a while ago, he said that really the committee has no role in reviewing the actual sale. I was wondering what we are going to be doing exactly with these witnesses here. What is the overall agenda? Are we just receiving information from them?

Also, could you clarify when we would recommend doing this? Is this going to be a study? Is it going to take a couple of meetings? When would you like to do it?

I would remind the members that under the Investment Canada Act, the minister has the exclusive purview to extend the review of the sale for an additional 30 days. That is exclusively his obligation to do.

Given that we have 16 days before this, could you clarify what...? Mr. Cannis mentioned that we really don't have a role to review the sale, but when would we even want to do this? Is it going to be a couple of meetings? Do you want to do a study on it? What exactly is the intent here, so that we could know as a committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll just make a comment as the chair, and Mr. Carrie may want to come back after a few comments.

Whether we take out “before a decision concerning the sale is rendered under the Investment Canada Act” or leave it in, it is helpful to the chair and the clerk to have some timing in a motion, such that I know and the clerk knows when the committee wants to do it. Whether the committee decides to go with this wording or another wording, it is helpful to us to identify some timeline as to when the committee wants to study this.

I have Mr. Hanger, Ms. Nash, and then Mr. Stanton.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

In reference to the deadlines, should the committee not request that the minister extend this review? Or is it a given that the committee is going to approach the minister in reference to...?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's Mr. Brison's amendment. I think we'll deal with that after we deal with this amendment.