Industry and Technology Committee on Sept. 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good afternoon, everyone.

It's wonderful to be back together with the entirety of our committee. I hope everybody had a very enjoyable summer.

I hope that you made the most of it with your family, friends and the people who voted for you. That's always good.

We have a lot of business in front of us. I'm going to call this meeting to order.

This is the second meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I have a couple of reminders. As we're talking about technology, if you're making use of your headset, please ensure that when it's not in your ear you have it on the sticker. This helps to reduce the amount of noise, which can be quite detrimental to the health and well-being of our interpreters, who work very hard on our behalf. I always like to give them a little wave and a thank you for the hard work they do to support us here at the committee.

As you know, our subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, met a few days ago.

We had a subcommittee meeting a couple of days ago to try to get us to a place where we could be very effective and efficient as we start our affairs here at INDU for this session of Parliament. What I am going to do is read the report, which everybody should have a copy of and which simply summarizes the information that we reported back to everyone.

It reads as follows:

Your Subcommittee met on Monday, September 15, 2025, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:

1. That, the first hour of the meeting on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, be reserved for discussion of the future business of the committee.

That would be right now. We will enter into that very shortly.

2. That, for the second hour on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, the Committee invite Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau of Canada, to appear before it to discuss the general mandate and other related matters.

That will be the second half of today's meeting.

3. That, on Monday, September 22, 2025, the committee invite...Vicky Eatrides, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to appear before it from 11:00AM to 12:00PM.

The only caveat here, colleagues, is that we've received word about the availability of the chairperson of the CRTC, which does not accommodate Monday. I believe that we're aiming to have that for Wednesday. It's confirmed for Wednesday.

Colleagues, depending on the direction we provide for ourselves today, we will use Monday of next week to begin the affairs that I imagine we will establish. Then, on Wednesday, we will take an hour out of whatever it is we decide we will be doing in terms of business for the committee to hear from the CRTC commissioner, and then we will resume whatever it is that we have set forth.

I hope that my explanations were clear. Are there any questions?

Are there questions about the path forward for the meetings today and next week?

Seeing none, we are moving into committee business. I see that hands are flying already.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, I don't know whether you have a preference for the order of motions. I think that we could let Ms. Dancho move her motion after Mr. Bardeesy has spoken.

Do you agree? You're nodding.

Mr. Bardeesy, the floor is yours.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We had some good discussions at the subcommittee meeting and then some more afterwards. I tabled a motion and it was sent to the committee members yesterday. There's an English version and a French version. I'll read it in English.

This has not changed from what has been submitted. The motion reads as follows:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), given the imperative for Canada's self-reliance in national defence and security, and the significant level of investment announced, the committee study the opportunity to use a defence industrial strategy to regenerate and further develop sovereign capabilities of Canada's industrial ecosystem and procurement opportunities for Canadian businesses. This includes areas such as aerospace, digital technologies, cyber security, vehicle and arms manufacturing, heavy industry, scientific research, advanced materials, and the bioeconomy; that the committee invite representatives from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to appear on this study; that the committee hold a minimum of six (6) meetings on this study, to conclude no later than November 5th; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

Should I also read it in French?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

No. I believe that Mr. Ste‑Marie has a hard copy in French.

Colleagues, we will always do our best to have motions provided in both official languages and, where possible, in advance. I think we've satisfied that in this instance.

Colleagues, this will be just a very quick reminder because we do have some new members around the table who may not be completely familiar with the process. Forgive me if I delve into the former educator in me to explain a little bit.

We are now entering a phase where we've had a motion moved, which means we can have debate on this motion. Once debate ceases, we move into a situation where we either move forward by consent or move into a voting situation.

With that, would anyone like to speak to the motion?

Ms. Dancho, the floor is yours.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that it's my first opportunity to speak, I would like to say how honoured I am to be on this committee with all of you and to be vice-chair. I very much look forward to working with colleagues of all parties and have been encouraged so far by the collaborative discussions we've had. I hope that will continue and certainly set the tone for the weeks and months to come.

With that, I'd like to move an amendment to the Liberal motion. Given that it's fairly similar, I'll indicate where I'm amending it by raising my hand so folks know. In the past, I've found that's easier. It would read as follows, as amended: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), given the imperative for Canada's self-reliance in national defence and security, and the significant level of investment announced, the committee study the opportunity to use a defence industrial strategy to regenerate and further develop sovereign capabilities of Canada's industrial ecosystem and procurement opportunities for Canadian businesses. This includes areas such as aerospace, digital technologies, cyber security, vehicle and arms manufacturing, heavy industry, scientific research, advanced materials, and the bioeconomy; that the committee invite ministers and representatives from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to appear on this study; that the committee conduct this study concurrently with a study on Canada's outflow of capital investment and productivity decline for a minimum of six (6) meetings each, should such a study be undertaken by this committee; and that the committee report its findings to the House.”

That is my amendment as moved.

Mr. Chair, I would say two things.

The first amendment is to invite ministers to this study. Given that Canada is currently without a defence industrial policy, at least to the magnitude that I believe Mr. Bardeesy and the Liberals would like to see it brought forward, this would be quite a significant advancement in some ways, depending on what the content of the defence policy in this country is. I know that the minister has been quite vocal about her advocacy for the defence industry in Canada. We've seen that quite a bit on her social media. I would imagine that she would welcome the opportunity to come to speak to that and answer important questions. I would also say that without the testimony of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence, I feel that the report, in the end, would be lacking the content required to bring the prestige that I think is needed for a report recommending such a change in industrial defence policy, or to introduce it.

Then, on the second part, certainly we've had private discussions, and I think everyone is keen, as I said, to work collaboratively. That means that we have an air of compromise as well: Everybody gives a little and everybody gets a little. I think we've established that a little bit behind the scenes with writing our motions. Everyone seems to have adjusted them a bit from their original format, which I greatly appreciate. It is not always the case on committees.

That being said, the issue, I believe.... As we know, we have a motion that we want to bring forward. I know the Bloc has a motion that they'd like to bring forward. I think the sticking issue would not be our support for this motion or a motion of the Bloc, but just the order in which we would like to ensure they are conducted. Of course, Liberals would like theirs first. We would like ours first. A reasonable compromise would be—I've done this and had success in past committees—that we have the studies concurrently, as I mentioned in the amendment: that one goes one day, perhaps on Monday, and the other goes on Wednesday, that we have an equal number of meetings and that it continues for six weeks. Then it's fair. It's a compromise on both sides and everybody wins a little.

That is my proposal, Mr. Chair, with my amendment. I look forward to hearing feedback from members.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Ms. Dancho.

I had a few hands up over here of members who would like to speak. I had Mr. Guglielmin, followed by Ms. Borrelli, followed by Monsieur Ste-Marie, followed by Mr. Bardeesy.

The floor is yours, Mr. Guglielmin.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, Ted.

It was Mr. Falk, Mr. Guglielmin—not Ms. Borrelli—followed by Mr. Ste-Marie, followed by Mr. Bardeesy.

This is not the friendly Manitoba that I try to live up to, Ted.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm very sorry.

Mr. Falk, the floor is yours.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to meet all of my committee members. I'm looking forward to working on industry. To have you as chair, Mr. Chair, I'm looking forward to that as well. I think we'll work well together.

Could I have that amendment read out again so that we all know what we're talking about?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

To be clear, Mr. Falk, you are asking for the amendment, as put forward by our colleague Ms. Dancho, to be either read again or—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'd just like it read again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You'd like it read again. Okay.

Well, Ms. Dancho, perhaps I can turn the floor to you, as you proposed it, and ask that you reread it for the benefit of Mr. Falk.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first change comes following the word “bioeconomy”, and it inserts that we invite “ministers”. That's the first amendment.

The second and last comes just at the end, after the word “study”. It says, “that the committee conduct this study concurrently with a study on Canada's outflow of capital investment and productivity decline for a minimum of six (6) meetings each, should such a study be undertaken by this committee”. Of course, as we know, that is the area of discussion we would like to study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Falk, does that satisfy what you were looking for?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I am satisfied. I just wanted clarity on that. I think it's excellent. I think we do need the ministers here to give us insight as to where we are exactly in their respective departments but also to provide a bit of further guidance to us as to the direction in which they want to see their departments go. I think that would be helpful for us in our study, to help focus the study a little better.

I'm wondering if it would also be appropriate at this time to make a subamendment to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Well, in terms of whether it's appropriate or not, Mr. Falk, you are allowed to provide a subamendment, should you wish to. Just for your recollection, as I'm sure you're aware, should you put forward a subamendment, we would debate that subamendment until we come to an agreement, at which point we would go back to the amendment and then back to the whole motion.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

It is your prerogative to move a subamendment, should you wish to.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, I would like to add a subamendment.

I would really like to include the Minister of Finance here as well, so that we can put things into a financial perspective. However, I'm going to limit my subamendment to clarifying that each of the ministers invited.... I don't have the wording for it, but it's that both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence come to this committee for a period of no less than two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay, Mr. Falk, for the benefit of the committee, it might be a good opportunity for us to have your staff provide in writing that subamendment so that we have it and can work off it. I think we've received the general direction you have in mind, but procedurally we can't move on to any other item until we begin debating that subamendment.

I'll look around the room. If colleagues feel they're ready to begin a conversation on the subamendment, we certainly can, but—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I just want it to be more specific, Mr. Chair. I don't want us to just invite them, give them a 10-minute slot and then they're out of here. I want it to be clear that they're each coming for a period of no less than two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, I certainly understand that.

Well, colleagues, do we feel we need to wait for that in writing, or do we feel we understand what Mr. Falk is looking to do?

Okay. With that, who wishes to speak to the subamendment?

I see a hand from Mr. Bardeesy.

The floor is yours.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

I appreciate the subamendment. I would just observe that if we have each of those ministers for two hours and have only six meetings, that means we have four meetings for all other witnesses. I know we all love to hear what ministers have to say on topics of national importance, but I think that, in a project where we have the prospect of informing policy, the large balance of witness testimony should be from those who can actually inform us, who can then help inform our report and then inform ministers. This is a huge space and a somewhat new space, definitely, for new members of this House. I think hearing from as many experts and players in this sector as possible is a bit more important.

In short, I think that we always like to meet with the ministers. However, a topic of this nature requires expert testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Bardeesy.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor.