Industry and Technology Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good morning, colleagues. I hope everybody had a wonderful weekend back.... I know it often feels short, for those of us who make our way to farther parts of the country. It's nice to see everybody this morning.

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

As a reminder, for the benefit of our interpreters, who work so hard on our behalf, if you are using your earpiece and it's plugged in when not in use, please make sure that it is on the sticker in front of you in order to avoid feedback and other things that can be harmful to their well-being.

Fellow members, we are at this morning's meeting to discuss committee business. I understand that there have been some very good discussions over the past few days.

I understand there were some very good conversations between the parties over the course of the past few days, which, I hope, will allow us to move rather swiftly through this morning's meeting and provide the opportunity for a good amount of future business to occupy the few months we have ahead of us. With that, I know there are a few members who would like to present some motions this morning: Mr. Bardeesy is first, and, once we're done dealing with that, we'll have Monsieur Ste-Marie. I hope that colleagues have....

I believe, Madam Clerk, you have a copy of...that what was intended to be presented has been distributed.

Mr. Bardeesy, I pass the floor to you, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This is the same motion that was distributed electronically a few minutes ago.

It's available in French and English.

Do you want me to read the entire motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes.

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

I'll read it.

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I think it's okay in English. Everyone has a copy of it in front of them, I believe.

Thank you, Mr. Bardeesy.

Madam Dancho, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Liberals' bringing back this motion.

We broadly support it, though I would make one amendment, which I'll move now. Rather than reading the entire study, unless colleagues would appreciate that, as it's a very small amendment, I think we'll put it together rather easily. It's in the second paragraph, third line. I'll read it as amended:

that the committee invite ministers and representatives from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development....

That is my amendment. Again, it's just to include the ministers in this study. I think I made this point last time, but I'll make it again today. I appreciate that Liberal members and this committee are interested in reviewing a potential defence industrial policy for Canada. I think that's quite a significant area we can focus on as a committee, a quite robust area of study, and it would certainly be worthwhile that the ministers come and speak to us about that.

In particular, I know that Minister Joly has spoken publicly, on social media, about her position on this quite frequently since her appointment, so I imagine that she would welcome the opportunity to come and speak to the committee about her perspective on potential industrial policy in the defence space.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, just as a reminder, particularly for those who are still new to Parliament and learning the ropes of how the parliamentary committee system works, we had a motion that was presented. We now have an amendment presented, which means that we will commence a discussion, should there be speakers, on the amendment. Once we have dealt with the amendment, we will then move to the main motion, either as amended, if that is agreed upon, or in its original form.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Guglielmin, I see that your hand is up. You'll follow Monsieur Ste-Marie.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, go ahead, please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm obviously going to support the motion. I also support the amendment, because I think we are entirely justified in sending an invitation to the minister for a study of this magnitude.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Thank you for your approval.

Mr. Guglielmin, the floor is yours. You'll be followed by Mr. Falk.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also would like to speak in support of Ms. Dancho's amendment. While departmental officials provide valuable insight to the committee, really what we're talking about here is decisions and directions at the highest level of government. The Minister of National Defence and Minister of Industry play key roles in shaping our defence and industrial strategy, and their direct participation is essential.

Conservatives are ready to work collaboratively on this important study. However, for us to fully understand the government's positions here, the ministers responsible must be present to answer our questions and provide clarity on their priorities. I think having them here will strengthen the study and demonstrate a commitment to transparency and meaningful oversight.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Falk, the floor is yours.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too will be supporting the amendment from Ms. Dancho to ask the minister to come here. The reason I think it's important is that we need to hear what the government is thinking. It wasn't that long ago that Prime Minister Carney promised us that defence spending would be focused more on Canadian manufacturing and Canadian suppliers. Just today the media is reporting that the Canadian army is moving ahead with a $5-billion purchase from the U.S. defence manufacturing sector. I think we need to know, really, the government's position on Canadian manufacturing when it comes to defence spending. Are we going to focus it on Canadian sources, or are we going to focus it on American sources?

I think we need to get clarification from the minister on what the government is thinking. That's why I think it's important that the minister attend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

Seeing no further speakers, I'll call the question.

I always try to drive things first, looking around the table to see if we have agreement.

I'm seeing “yes” from the Liberal side.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated its position.

Conservatives, I presume you are all in favour.

(Amendment agreed to)

Colleagues, does anybody wish to speak on the motion as amended?

I see no further speakers.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Ste‑Marie, I think you have your own motion to present to the committee, so the floor is yours.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I put forward a motion suggesting that we look at artificial intelligence. It's a long motion, so I won't read the whole thing. Some members have said that the motion has a broad scope and that we could perhaps focus more on the impact of the industry or on data protection. These are good debates. Once we start our work, we'll see how it progresses.

Another colleague reminded us that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will also be looking into the matter. We could start studying the motion fairly quickly, because, as I understand it, the parties agreed that we would first study the two other motions that have been adopted before moving on to this one.

However, I think today would be a good time to adopt my motion, even though it is fairly general. Then, depending on what the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics does, and depending on how our own work progresses, we can always come back to it as needed to amend it and make it more relevant. I think it would be a good idea for us to adopt the motion today.

My understanding is that it would be in the last part of the fall session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Colleagues, we have another motion in front of us. I think everybody has had this one for several days now, as it was presented to us last week.

I'll follow the same process and look around the table to see if anybody has commentary.

Madam Dancho, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much.

Certainly, I'm looking forward to this study. I think it's an important area for the Canadian economy. There is much change to come, I think, in the next few years, because of AI. It's certainly critical for Industry to review it.

I think Monsieur Ste-Marie touched on this, but I believe the ethics committee may be prioritizing an AI study. Once we are through the initial Liberal and Conservative studies—this one would be next on the docket—I would just make the friendly suggestion that we take another look. The ethics committee should be concluded. If there are different areas of focus, or if we can narrow it or expand it to fill the gaps to complement the ethics one and ensure that our committees broadly are reviewing everything that needs to be reviewed, then perhaps we could just commit to doing that in order to ensure that there's no duplication and that we're covering all the critical areas that we need to from an industry perspective on AI.

This is not an amendment. We'll be supporting this for sure. We just want to make sure that we're checking back in before we begin this study, to ensure that it's not duplicating efforts by our ethics committee colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Madam Dancho.

Yes, the committee is the master of its own domain. At any point, should we wish to revisit a motion we've adopted, we certainly have the ability to do that, so I appreciate the comments.

I have Mr. Bardeesy, followed by Madam O'Rourke.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We'll be supporting the amendment. I thank my colleagues for working with us on the three studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Bardeesy.

Ms. O'Rourke, you have the floor.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to thank my colleague for recommending this study, because AI is not a partisan issue. It is a critical issue of our time that could revolutionize the way we work. It is extremely useful while being in no way partisan. I really look forward to hearing from the witnesses and seeing the findings of the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I don't see any further speakers, colleagues, so we'll call the question. I suspect, based on commentary offered by members of all parties here, that we're going to have agreement, so I'm just looking very briefly around the room.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will have a couple of things, once we get to the end of this meeting, that I want to talk about in terms of scheduling.

The motion you moved, Mr. Ste‑Marie, is not really a problem, but since we have the Conservative motion and the Liberal motion to study at the same time, we have to decide on the exact dates when we will do so. Your motion will follow the other two motions.

Madame Dancho, I believe you have something you want to raise with the committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that we have a few hours of committee business today.

I do want to bring forward another area that I think this committee should prioritize. I have touched base with all the parties on this, and there seems to be some broad agreement that they are amenable to reviewing this issue.

I'll move the motion and then just speak briefly about it.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertake a study on financial fraud and scams in Canada, recognizing that this is a significant and growing threat to consumers and the economy, to identify best practices for prevention to strengthen Canada's anti-fraud framework; that the study examine:

the role of banks, telecommunication companies and digital platforms in preventing scams and protecting consumers;

the responsibilities of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, as well as other federal departments and agencies in enforcement, regulation and public awareness;

the adequacy of consumer protection laws, law enforcement capacity and inter-agency coordination;

the impact of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, in enabling and combatting fraud;

best practices from other jurisdictions, such as Australia, for improving prevention and enforcement measures;

and the broad economic and social consequences for Canadians;

that the committee invite the Minister of Industry to appear for no less than one hour on the study, as well as witnesses from relevant departments and agencies, industry representatives and experts; that the committee hold no fewer than four meetings on the study; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

I would say, colleagues, that I think we've all received the constituent complaints and calls about very prevalent scams via voice calls, texts, emails and social media messages, and we've probably received these scam calls and messages ourselves as well. It's a growing area of concern, and we have, in particular, a lot of seniors who are being scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars. Canada has taken some steps, but we're seeing other jurisdictions, like Australia.... In fact, Australia is the only jurisdiction in the world, to my knowledge, that has taken action and seen a direct decrease in the number of scam frauds going on.

I do believe that this is firmly within the industry committee's mandate to review. I certainly believe that it would be in all Canadians' interest for Canada to improve its prevention mechanisms in this regard. I believe we'll probably touch on it in the AI study as well, but with greater technology advances, this is likely to be an ever-increasing issue. I would ask for all of the committee's support.

In terms of priority, we have our Bloc, Liberal and Conservative studies that we'll be prioritizing—one, two and three—but I would ask that, rather than commit to a timeline where this has to be after those, we commit as a committee, publicly in this forum, to look into this and that it will be an area of focus at some point in the coming months.

We have about 10 months left before June, so there is plenty of time, but I do think it sends a message to all of these actors—who, of course, pay attention to the industry committee—that this committee will be taking it seriously and that we welcome their efforts, before this committee starts, to take even more efforts to prevent fraud, so that when and if they do appear at this committee, they have more to tell us of the progress they are making.

I simply ask that we pass this motion and agree to prioritize it at some point later on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Madam Dancho.

Colleagues, a motion has been moved. We will again enter into a discussion, should there be anyone wishing to speak.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, I see your hand up. You have the floor. You will be followed by Mr. Guglielmin.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is clearly an extremely important and extremely worrisome subject. As Ms. Dancho said, we all have cases in our ridings of people who have been scammed or been victims of fraud. We need to change the way things are done, get tough on fraudsters and make sure that these kinds of illegal practices stop. I think the subject is extremely important. I am in favour of such a motion.

However, I would like to raise two points. First, the Standing Committee on Finance, or FINA, should be consulted, because financial fraud is primarily its responsibility. That said, some aspects could also partly fall under our committee's responsibility. Second, given the short notice, I didn't have enough time to consult my entire team to see if we would like to amend the motion or adopt it as is.

I think this is an extremely important topic. I think it's important that parliamentary committees be able to address it. It could potentially be up to FINA. That said, I'm not prepared to vote on this motion today given the short time frame we had. In addition, the fall calendar is already full, which means that the study could be shunted to the winter. However, I am entirely in favour of the committee looking at this subject.