Industry Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

He's putting forward that the committee should request that.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Going to my previous point as to whether or not it's considered a friendly amendment to include the officials from the Canadian Space Agency, would it be an acceptable friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Basically that would be included either in Mr. Carrie's amendment or in the main motion.

I sense there is support for it. I'm not sensing opposition. Okay?

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I think we should specify, as Mr. Brison says, the president “or a designated individual”. As Mr. Brison noted, nothing is for sure around here until it's noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think we can add either departmental officials or a representative from the Canadian Space Agency. Is there any objection to that? Okay.

I have Ms. Nash.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to note that very shortly after the announced sale of MDA, I raised this with the committee, and it was the will of the committee that we would not hear from the minister until a period of between four and six weeks after I had raised the issue. When I proposed that we hear from witnesses, at the time we felt that one session of testimony would be adequate, but as I said in the motion and in my explanation of my original motion, the reason for wanting further hearings was based on the testimony that we heard from those initial witnesses. I have no problem in hearing from people at the Canadian Space Agency, but as I say, I think we should hear from the company.

The reason I proposed hearing directly from the ministers themselves is that under the act governing the operation of remote sensing space systems, it's very clear that it is the ministers involved who have responsibilities concerning licences of these satellites. It's very clear that it's the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example, who can suspend a licence if he or she is convinced the operation is likely to be harmful to national security, defence, or the conduct of international relations, or is likely to be inconsistent with international obligations.

I'm quoting from the act. It says that the Minister of National Defence may order a licensee to restrict or interrupt any operation for a specified period of time if that minister believes that continuation of the operation would harm national defence interest.

The act also says:

The Solicitor General of Canada may order a licensee to provide any service

(a) to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) that the Solicitor General believes is desirable for the fulfilment of the RCMP's responsibilities under subsection 6(1) of the Security Offences Act;

(b) to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that the Solicitor General believes is desirable for the fulfilment of its responsibilities under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act; or

(c) to the Government of Canada that the Solicitor General believes is desirable for critical infrastructure protection or emergency preparedness.

These are very specific and wide-ranging powers that the ministers have. These were put in here for a reason, and the reason was that there was concern about this technology slipping out of Canadian control and that there were specific important national interests that this bill was designed to protect. Even at the time, the point was raised at the foreign affairs committee by the NDP that in fact there were not enough protections for the national interest. Now I think these concerns are coming once again to the forefront.

It's nice to have people from the department come and give us their opinions, but the legal responsibilities are held by the ministers. That's why in my motion I listed the ministers responsible. It is because these powers and responsibilities are quite significant, and from the testimony we heard, the key here is who holds the licences for these images. These are questions that we need answered. We need to know the consequences from the people who have political responsibility on the part of the Government of Canada.

I just wanted to raise that in reference to the amendment put forward by Mr. Carrie.

I do want to say, while I have the floor, that I recognize the concern that time is running out, which is why I raised these concerns early on, and I appreciate that the committee has much other business that it wants to complete. Therefore, I do want to use this opportunity, while I have the floor, to support the call for an extension of the time allotted to the industry minister before he makes his final decision. Obviously it is the minister himself who has the power and the responsibility to take the decision on this, but I believe this committee should recommend that he take the additional time at his disposal so that we can fully explore the impact of the sale for Canadians.

Mr. Carrie asked why we're doing this, given that we do not have the power to influence the decision; it is the minister who has the power to make the decision. I think everyone here recognizes that it is the minister, but I also think we all recognize that we have a responsibility to Canadians to examine issues that are in the national interest of Canadians. Asking key questions, raising concerns, being able to ask the minister himself about some of the concerns we have, asking other ministers involved--those are all part of our responsibility. The future of our country's sovereignty, our role in future space projects--those are pretty important things for us to consider and to fully understand. I think it's an important obligation that the committee is undertaking.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

You have presented three motions, Ms. Nash, and they were amended, but the two previous ones were adopted February 26 and January 29. I think there's been a general consensus at the committee to bring the minister forward on this issue, and a general consensus to have one meeting. I'm sensing there's general consensus to have, after the one meeting, at least one further meeting, or perhaps two; I don't know exactly how many.

So there's general consensus with respect to the motion. There are some...I would consider them differences, small or medium differences, with respect to whom to invite and the timing, but there seems to be a general consensus that we can work toward. I just want to make that point.

I have Mr. Stanton, and then Mr. Simard.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One problem I see here is that we are under some restrictions time-wise. That's why I certainly support the first amendment to get officials here.

I'm also of the view that the nature of...and I agree with other committee members that, after having the one meeting, there are still many questions about this transaction. I too want to get to the bottom of this and understand better. I have a sense, though, that these are questions of a more technical nature as opposed to political.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of eventually having the ministers in front of us, but if we can expedite a meeting or two by getting answers to some of those technical questions, especially around this Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, which came up in fairly regular detail at our last meeting on this, by Mr. Garneau and others....

My concern here is that with the overlay of the Investment Canada Act, here you have a situation where you have a transaction that's before the minister. As all members have suggested and have agreed, he is the only one who can make the determination that the 30-day extension can be put, which we can certainly ask him about when he's here on Thursday, but only he can decide. As well, because the Investment Canada Act requires this commercial confidentiality, are we going to be under some constraints there in terms of hearing what we need to hear about this transaction? For example, can government officials...?

We're in a real quandary here, I think. We'd like to know more, but to what extent is this commercial confidentiality going to impair our committee's ability to look further into this?

Perhaps the analysts, through you, Mr. Chair, could speak to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't know if the analysts want to comment.

Clearly, there are some provisions in the act, which they have mentioned before, that prohibit the minister or anyone else from talking about the specific proposed sale. But we can, as we did in the last meeting, ask general questions with regard to the background of the sale, to events leading up to the sale, and to Canada's space policy in general. Obviously if members ask a question and the minister or others say, “I can't answer that”, I think members generally get that distinction. If they ask a question that can't be answered, the witnesses are free to say, “For reasons of the Investment Canada Act, I cannot answer that.”

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In light of that, I certainly support the first amendment that was put forward here to make some of these changes, even if it's just to expedite the process here in the next short time we have. Insofar as putting a date, in fact making sure that we have this report and analysis and study done before an imminent decision on this transaction, I think it almost goes without saying that there's fairly good concurrence that we have to make this happen so there will still be time for us to report to the House, report to the minister our findings in this regard for his consideration in ultimately making the determination on this transaction.

So I don't know that you need that last statement, because I think it is more or less there. If the committee chooses to go that way, obviously that will be the case. But I think that's before us, and we all understand there is a deadline we're working under here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Simard, please.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think it would be fairly tragic if the minister were to make this decision while we're away on a break, when members of his committee, the industry committee, have expressed concerns—all parties actually have expressed concerns—given the first meeting.

It would seem to me that if we can get an undertaking from the minister on Thursday that he will extend the 30 days, then it would make sense for us to bring in the ministers, as proposed by Ms. Nash, and do it fairly quickly, even if we have to have extra meetings, so that we can submit something in writing to the minister. Obviously the final decision is his. It's his prerogative. At the same time, we are the industry committee, and I think it would be very worthwhile for us to come back with a report within two weeks after we come back, prior to his having to make his decision.

If he makes a decision on March 22 or 23, and we haven't had a chance to comment, I think it would be a very sad thing, after we've all expressed concern that this may not be in Canada's best interests. So I would say let's get an undertaking from the minister on Thursday to extend the 30 days, to give us some time to report to him. While we understand that in the end it's his decision to make, at least let us report back to him and give him our preoccupations or our feedback on this deal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Monsieur Vincent next.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

About the time left to study this matter, we have been told that there are only 16 days left, plus an additional 30 days. We have been told that it is a deadline but that the Minister has the power to request an extension if he so wishes. So, we are not limited to 46 days. Over the next 30 days, if we want to continue, the Minister will be able to ask for an extension. He has that power under section 22 of the Canada Investment Act.

I fear that Mr. Carrie has misled us. If the government believes that we are not ready to go ahead with the sale under the Canada Investment Act, it can request an extension, which will be granted. If the 46 days are not sufficient and we need more time to carry out an in-depth study and put the matter to rest, we will go even further by asking the minister to suspend his decision and ask for another extension so that we can provide him with a report. I believe that would be the proper procedure considering the importance of this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Under the act, as I understand it.... I'll the ask the researcher to comment, because I may not be considered an expert. The 45-day period is March 22; the extension would take us until April 22.

Mark, do you want to address the specifics? This is important with respect to timing.

[Mark Mahabir, Committee Researcher]

Any additional extension beyond the 30 days requires the consent of the both parties to the transaction, ATK and MDA.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Both have to.

Could you explain that a bit further?

[Mark Mahabir]

Any extension in addition to the 30 days requires the agreement of ATK and MDA; both have to agree to an additional extension.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So the minister has the prerogative to extend it from March 22 to April 22, but to extend it beyond that requires the consent of both parties.

Is that clear?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Indeed, but section 22 allows him to say that the government is not ready and to ask both parties to agree for an extension. If both agree — and I do not see why they would not — we will have a longer deadline. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

As deadlines, we have March 22 and we have April 22 as the 75 days. I don't know whether we want to count on both parties agreeing to an extension beyond that. My suggestion would be to try to do something. By the 45-day period, it will very tough for the committee, but certainly by the 75-day period the committee should be able to have one or two more meetings or to do whatever it decides to do.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

But, in those circumstances, I suppose that some reports have already been prepared and have been given to the Minister of Industry. I hope that officials in his department have already studied the proposed sale of MDA. Are those documents available? Could we get them in order to see what their conclusions were? No? All right. Could we get them through an access to information request? What is the title of that report?

He is sitting behind the member and is signaling that it is not possible but is he the one to make the decision? Let them stop his facial contortions. If he wants to sit here, let him be elected. It is not up to him to tell the chairman or the members of the committee if they are entitled or not to have those documents. There are people in this room who can answer this question responsibly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I was actually looking to the researcher.

We have the act here, and members can review it, but my understanding is that anything relating to the commercial transaction itself cannot be commented on by anybody while the transaction is being reviewed by the minister. That's my understanding.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I understand that the people can get what they want from the reports. I'm not referring to the investment. I want to know if it is better for Canada to sell that company or to keep it. I'm not asking what the price is or what the money would be used for. That is not my concern. I only want to know if Canada is making the right decision or is making a big mistake. That is the most important issue here. It is not a matter of business, money or transaction. Those things are not my concern. I want to know if people in the department have told the Minister that this would be a good transaction or not. If he has a report about this, it must be available.