Industry Committee on May 9th, 2006

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's clear that manufacturing and fuel prices are very important, but one other thing I would like to see--and not see get lost--is the WHTI's current effect on tourism. This seems to be a category in industry that hasn't received a lot of attention in the past, for whatever reasons. It's important because of the passport issue that's facing us, as well as the price of gasoline that is affecting Canadian tourism right now. Four consecutive studies have shown that the WHTI is going to pose significant economic problems for Canada.

Tourism, auto manufacturing, and aerospace--all that stuff is good, but we're hoping tourism doesn't get lost in this as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think it would be important, too, in light of the decision to send back to the CRTC...because of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel. I think it would be a good idea. That would be a nice, simple thing we could move forward, have them come before the committee so we can see what they're recommending as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

As the chair, I did come prepared today with topics, and I'm happy to discuss it. We do have the room till one o'clock, so if we want to sit here we can certainly do so.

There were two panels the former government set up that have obviously reported under the new government. I think there's a fair amount of interest there. On the telecommunications panel, I know one member of the committee has already written me on this specific issue. There's also the commercialization panel that reported, and I know this was an interest to members on both sides. The second area I had was manufacturing, considering, obviously, both aerospace and auto, but other areas of manufacturing too.

The third area I had was about the national science policy advice infrastructure to the government; this is very much related to research and development, science and technology. It's also about looking at how we provide science advice. We have a science adviser. Mr. Fontana used to be a parliamentary secretary for science and technology. We've had a minister of state for science and technology in the past. We have a council of science and technology advisers to the industry minister. Are we providing advice in the best manner possible to the government and to Parliament or should it be changed? And that can be fit within a science and technology framework.

The fourth, and frankly, looking at some statements of all members of this committee, was looking at prosperity and competitiveness. Within that I think we could fit certainly research and development, going from basic research to product development to manufacturing. So those were some of the issues I had.

Also, someone raised the main estimates. My understanding is the main estimates have to be done by November 10, 2006. The Privacy Act does have to be done sometime this year. The price of gasoline wasn't on my list, but I was ready for it. So R and D, science and technology, tourism....

I certainly sense it's the will of the committee to invite the industry minister as soon as possible, so I think we'll certainly endeavour to do that. Should we provide some parameters? For instance, this telecommunications panel, the commercialization panel, overall economic performance, manufacturing--do we want to provide some parameters in the letter or do we just want it open-ended for him to...?

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, I think there are at least several areas here that would be of concern to the committee in its receiving of the minister. I think confining him to six or seven areas may prove difficult for the minister himself; he may have other ideas that he wishes to bring forth. I don't think we should hamstring the minister on this, but I am interested specifically in the areas that had been identified, not so much, perhaps, the work that has been done in the past. Prosperity and competitiveness, the fourth point you put forward, could easily be put in the second category of manufacturing that you outlined at the outset.

You've talked about telecommunications. I know there is a resolution by the New Democrats to have a joint committee to look into that decision as already taken by cabinet over the last week. So I think these are things that really underscore the necessity of having the minister here as a first step in order to address the other ones. I think it's safe to say, considering the four or five items that have been raised, those will be issues that will be raised with the minister, and hopefully he can illuminate the committee as to where he sees the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is my first time, so I'm just going to ask, as we're laying out issues that are important to talk about.... The agriculture industry, in terms of the development of biodiesel fuels research, and talking about prosperity and how that ripples out into the good of the country for the environment, and what we can do...I think that's a significant issue that we may want to have some discussion about. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Anyone else?

Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Perhaps we can go with Mr. McTeague's proposal and let the minister know which issues we have identified as being the most relevant. Therefore, when he appears before the committee, he will already have had an overview of our concerns. At our meeting on Thursday, perhaps the parliamentary secretary can inform us of the minister's availability, to guide us along.

In my opinion, we have to look into the issue of global competition in the manufacturing industry, as well as research and development. How can we make this industry competitive again? That issue will also affect what we will do with the Free Trade Agreement.

To my mind, this question is one on which the committee can give the government the most profitable advice, given what is ahead of us. Things happen very quickly. In four months, we will already have begun discussions on next year's budget. Therefore, if we want to recommend measures that will help the manufacturing sector become more competitive, we have to start discussing this ahead of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have Mr. Fontana and then Mr. McTeague.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if the question was, should the minister come here with prescribed questions and/or answers to some of the concerns of the committee, I think he has now a range or a consensus of views as to what we might want to talk about. But I think it's just as important for a minister to be able to outline the government's agenda with regard to some of these particular issues. I think manufacturing, obviously, research and development, and competitiveness and productivity are very important. I think a good minister would want to do that anyway. I don't think we should hamstring him.

The other thing that is not mentioned, but I know it probably falls within the finance committee, is directly related very much to our ability to be able to compete or to support small business, and especially enterprise with regard to access to capital. Having been around this place for going on 18 years, I know that sometimes other committees do some additional work. But because there is a review of the Bank Act that has to be done by the government, I think by the end of this year—and I know the finance committee will probably undertake it or be the lead on it—the fact is that what happens in the banking, insurance, and securities areas is very much related to how well our industries maintain competitiveness and productivity.

So I would hope that at the end of the day there may be an opportunity for us to get into it as an industry committee. I'm suggesting that we ought to lay out a plan for the next five weeks. We ought to lay out a plan between September and the end of December, and again into the new year, and essentially work to those things. I know there are a lot of things we can do, but I think we ought to be focused in terms of when we want to do some of these particular things. I think we might have a better idea of priorizing all of that list now on important issues that in fact impact us.

I would suggest that the manufacturing sector obviously will be a great challenge to our country, as well as research and development, or even gasoline or energy prices, and the impact that those might have on our economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I don't want to make the list exhaustive, but these are certainly recommendations to the minister where the department has made some signals.

As you were, Mr. Chair, I was lobbied, or at least brought information forward to, to the effect of data protection, which the minister may or may not be proceeding with. I don't believe a case has been made for it at this stage. It's important I think that we put this in the wider context of manufacturing, and that the minister, as he appears, be given as much manoeuvrability to explain the situation for many of us here on that particular issue.

Further to what Mr. Fontana has said, the financial services within the context of manufacturing, within the context of encouraging enterprise within Canada, I think are going to become paramount in terms of the overall benchmarks that this committee is going to want to achieve in a very short period of time, to demonstrate to Canadians that we are dealing with issues that are extremely important to them and very relevant in terms of outcomes.

I think that's one of the governing principles of what this committee ought to be looking forward to, and certainly I will be. In terms of the direction to the minister, the list may very well be exhaustive, but it's important I think now to put these on the record. I note the parliamentary secretary is here. I will certainly want to hear from the minister on data protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

By data protection, do you mean protection of personal information?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Data protection, not from the privacy information, but data protection within the context of proposals made to increase the period of time under the patents issue of the pharmaceutical industry.

I understand the current regime in the United States is five and then three for a new system. Under the previous government, Industry Canada had been taking the position that it was eight years. There was no differentiation between the five and three. That's of concern to members. I don't think many of us have heard the case for it. Whether or not the minister will proceed with putting this in terms of regulations is a different matter, but we should hear from the minister before any decision is made.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

At this point my suggestion would be for us to write the minister and ask him to come forward and generally outline the government's agenda. In this letter we will also identify specifically topics that have been raised here in this meeting, saying that the industry, science, and technology committee is interested in the following areas, and then outline the areas. So he can come, and he'll have a general mandate, but he'll know some of the issues that we want him to address specifically.

Is that acceptable?

Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I agree with what you are saying. I just want to have clarification on whether or not we are going to finish deciding on the committee's priorities by next Thursday. Next Thursday is probably too early for the minister, but from now to mid-June, we will not be sitting for a long time. We cannot afford to lose time. I would like to know immediately whether or not we are going to decide on our priorities on Thursday, aside from our meeting with the minister, so that we can call witnesses, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Crête, my wish would be that Mr. Carrie would communicate to the minister as quickly as possible the desire of the committee to have him before us. We'll follow that up with a formal letter from the committee.

I have a list here, which I will pass on to our researchers and they can outline it, but if you have any other topics, for instance, research and development, if you want to add some specific items to that topic, please feel free to submit them to the clerk and the researcher so that we can outline that for Thursday. Then on Thursday we can come forward with a sense of what you would like to study, what your first area of interest is, your second area, your third area, so that--looking at the calendar--towards mid-June we can actually accomplish at least two or three of these and then move forward in the fall.

Does that sound like a reasonable suggestion?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Just as a final note to the parliamentary secretary, given the number of issues that may be raised, it would be helpful if he could also consider the full two hours with the minister. Clearly, it may not be possible to address all of these issues. The minister may be able to do this in his opening speech, cover as much territory as he can, but I think there will be a number of questions to help us in terms of the long-term direction of the committee. So the full two hours would be helpful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, c'est tout.

Thank you.

We'll see you on Thursday morning at 11 a.m. We're adjourned.