Industry Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

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

I have no difficulty agreeing to what you are saying. These matters also affect the provinces and their respective administrations. Obviously, there's going to be a debate on this subject. We agree to the spirit of the motion, but we are simply taking into consideration elements that have been brought up in Mr. Crête's motion, which go much further than the ones we have before us.

Not to second guess what the committee is going to do here, but, Chair, I think it's fair to say that I'd like to see where the finance committee goes on this. If in fact at three o'clock tomorrow or two o'clock tomorrow the finance committee adopts this, it would be a simple question of having the industry committee then accept the motion of the finance committee.

I understand the concern of the Bloc that we want all committees that have something to do with this to adopt this motion, but I think I want to be more specific in terms of adopting or accepting what the finance committee has done.

We are dealing with a substantial recommendation for expenditures of money targeted in areas that I think are more appropriately dealt with by the finance committee, save and except Technology Partnerships Canada. That's my personal view.

That's not to say that we are opposed to the motion. It is simply to say that we should see what the finance committee does first. Let's ensure that all these elements here.... If you look at the Crête motion, it is far more in-depth than the one that has been presented before us today. If I were looking at a global view of these motions, I would say that the one by Mr. Paul Crête, on the finance committee, deserves far more attention and is in fact probably more appropriately geared to the appropriate committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I would just like to agree with my honourable colleague's recommendation. Let's wait and see what they come up with before we start doing this in tandem. We don't want to repeat the work; we have a lot of things on our plate to get done in a very short period of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

As I understand it, the recommendation is to leave the notice of motion on committee business and then see what the finance committee does with the motion. I think that's Mr. McTeague's recommendation.

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

I just don't know the timing on this, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We would leave it under committee business, and Madame Brunelle could bring the motion forward at any future meeting. Do I understand that correctly?

Is that okay with you, Madame Brunelle?

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

I will agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci. Thank you.

We will leave the notice of motion from Madame Brunelle on committee business.

We'll now go to the motion from Ms. Nash.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My motion is concerning the sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, MDA, to Alliant Techsystems, ATK, which would have them purchase the Canadarm and the RADARSAT satellite business for $1.325 billion.

There is a review being conducted by Industry Canada under the Investment Canada Act. The industry minister is involved in that review.

There are questions and concerns around this sale, some of which I'll briefly mention. Certainly there has been significant public investment in the RADARSAT project. The company to which that will now be sold, ATK, is a manufacturer, amongst other things, of land mines and cluster bombs. So there are questions about whether Canada's international obligations will be considered. There are concerns about whether we will be treaty compliant as a result of this sale and about the use of the technology and who will get information from this technology.

We have heard the industry minister say that he would consider a national security test for foreign takeovers, but we haven't had any explanation about what that could include and whether this might be a sale where there are security considerations.

There are many questions about this sale. I have had a number of calls and emails sent to my riding about this. I think it would be very appropriate to have the industry minister, who is the person responsible for overseeing this review, here so that we can ask him about the criteria for the review and any other information he is able to supply us. In addition, he can hear concerns we have and the kinds of questions and requests for information that we're getting from our constituents.

My motion calls on the industry minister to come before the committee within the next two weeks to answer questions about the proposed sale.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Carrie and then Mr. McTeague.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I understand how MPs would most certainly have questions about this transaction, but the Investment Canada Act is very strict. It has very strict confidentiality rules. She's actually asking the minister to come here to do something that legally he would not be able to do.

I have this available in English and French, if the members would like to see it, but I'd like to read into the record subsection 36(1) of the Investment Canada Act:

Subject to subsections (3) and (4), all information obtained with respect to a Canadian, a non-Canadian or a business by the Minister or an officer or employee of Her Majesty in the course of the administration or enforcement of this Act is privileged and no one shall knowingly communicate or allow to be communicated any such information or allow anyone to inspect or to have access to any such information.

Subsection 36(2):

Notwithstanding any other Act or law but subject to subsections (3) and (4), no minister of the Crown and no officer or employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, to give evidence relating to any information that is privileged under subsection (1) or to produce any statement or other writing containing such information.

If she would like, I'm sure the minister would be prepared to arrange a briefing to explain how the Investment Canada Act works so that she can understand how the process goes, but the minister can't answer the questions that are proposed here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

We'll go to Mr. McTeague, Mr. Simard, and then Ms. Nash.

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

Chair, I was asked to provide some media comments on this last week and I suggested concerns, right off the top, about the regulatory bar that the minister will face if he comes here.

Don't get me wrong, Chair. I want the minister here and I want him here badly. I want to talk to him about a whole pile of things.

I would ask Mr. Carrie to now convey to his minister that he has been minister since August. It's now nearly February and we haven't seen him before this committee. I think this, among other things, would be a good question to ask, even though he can't answer them.

Having said that, Chair, I have some previous experience with respect to MacDonald Dettwiler and RADARSAT-2 . You will note, Chair, from my previous employment, until I was shown the door by your party, that there are a number of concerns that can be raised regarding the relationship of ATK to the land mines treaty with respect to cluster bombs, as Ms. Nash has quite rightly pointed out, and whether we are treaty compliant.

It requires that the foreign affairs and international trade committee would be the more appropriate committee in which to have those deliberations. I'm not letting you off the hook. I'm simply saying I want to see the minister here. I want to hear from Mr. Carrie as to when he plans to finally bring the minister before the committee.

I understand his concerns, and they are legitimate ones with respect to confidentiality rules. It would be nice to have the minister here to ask him questions and to have him respond by saying, “I can't say anything”.

We also know the regulator, within a week or two, will hopefully have a response.

I think at that point Ms. Nash's motion might be more appropriate. But I also caution the NDP that they would want to make sure this motion is presented before the foreign affairs committee, which in fact has the teeth and which in fact can go in camera and look at the details of the sale but cannot take information with them. So I would suggest that might be an area they will want to explore on their own.

I think it's clear I want to see the minister, we want to see the minister, and this is going to continue to be a recurring theme for the committee. We're all doing great work, but we need to hear from this minister once and for all.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

We'll go to Monsieur Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Our committee here is industry, science and technology, and I think there is a substantial technology transfer with this potential deal.

I understand the confidentiality restraints that Mr. Carrie would be facing. At the same time, I think it would be important for him to appear before our committee to maybe understand our concerns and bring that in his negotiations prior to the end of the review.

I agree with my colleague that the foreign affairs committee would play a role, but I do feel this committee should play a role as well.

I don't need to know the price. He doesn't have to tell me what price they're paying, but I think he has to understand some of the concerns we have with regard to this deal. And he may be bringing a different perspective to the whole review process if he sees us before the end of the review, so I would like to see him here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Nash.

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

Yes, thank you.

With all due respect to some of the comments that have been made, we are not going to request that the minister reveal corporate secrets or satellite pictures that the technology has been able to capture.

We want to know what criteria he's going to be looking at, and we want reassurance from him that Canadian interests are going to be protected in this sale.

Given that it is the purview of the ministry of industry and the industry minister who is involved in this, I believe he should appear before the committee and allow us the opportunity to ask him questions. And obviously he will need to comply with the law in terms of not revealing information that should not be revealed. Describing the criteria he's going to be basing his decision on...and there may be all kinds of other areas that he is well within his rights to answer questions on. I think it would be important for Canadians to see that their concerns are being raised and that the issues that have been publicly debated are being addressed by this committee.

I believe this is the appropriate committee to review this sale, and it is appropriate that the minister come himself to answer what he can, but also to hear the concerns that people are raising with us, whether or not he has appropriate answers at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Madame Brunelle, Mr. Carrie, and then Mr. Cannis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is important for our committee to undertake a study on this sale. Indeed, it is important that, at the very least, the minister be made aware of our concerns.

When I see that RADARSAT-2, the Canadian land surveillance satellite, does not truly belong to our government because it was developed through a public-private partnership, this is of concern to me. Can any secret information be disclosed because this project belongs to the Americans? Will we be governed by the Patriot Act?

There is a whole host of questions. We have a responsibility to seek the answers to the furthest extent possible. I'm in favour of hearing from the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have heard what the members have said, and I do respect that there are certainly some questions.

I'd like to state again that as this notice of motion is written, to have “the Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice, appear before the committee in the next two weeks to answer questions concerning the review by Industry Canada, under the Investment Canada Act, of the proposed sale of part of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. to American-owned Alliant Techsystems”.... Under the Investment Canada Act, “no one shall knowingly communicate or allow to be communicated any such information or allow anyone to inspect or to have access to any such information”.

If this is what you're asking, all I'm saying is that you're asking him to do something he cannot do. If there are other things this committee decides they would like to talk to the minister about, as a committee we can always request that the minister come here. But what you have written here won't work.

You mentioned the criteria. If you would like to have a briefing on how the Investment Canada Act works, I'm sure the minister would be happy to actually get you that briefing so that you know exactly what's happening in the process. But he won't be able to comment on what you've asked for in this notice of motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

We'll go to Mr. Cannis, please.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just filling in today. You and I have served on this committee before, and as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, I can appreciate where Mr. Carrie is coming from, having lived it, but I can also appreciate where the motion is intended to go.

We're faced with some difficult circumstances now with respect to our military initiatives. We had Mr. O'Connor, for example, come before the committee. We know very well there are things that they can and cannot say. Nevertheless, it was an opportunity for the committee to engage. The minister knows this very well, as the parliamentary secretary very eloquently pointed out. But I think it also sends a signal, Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest—the willingness of the minister to come before the committee. On the part about two weeks, I can't say, because we know how busy the ministers are.

What triggered for me, if you want to add my comments, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the minister has been in this place for such a period of time. We know ministers are all over the map trying to do the best they can. But just the fact that he could come before the committee is what I'm encouraging. The members will have an opportunity to ask questions. The minister knows very well the guidelines he's working under, and it's his privilege to say, “I'm sorry,” as the Minister of Defence, for example, in our committee has responded, “I am not permitted to...”, etc. And that's most likely what the minister, on specific questions, will respond with.

I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to invite the minister. If they so choose—the members, that is—to ask these questions, and if they get open-ended...or responses that really don't make any sense, then they have to be prepared for that. I fully respect the process, and it is information that cannot be divulged, should not be divulged.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is also a responsibility on our part, as members, to convey what we're hearing from our constituents—our concerns and what's going on. I think that's where Ms. Nash is coming from.

I would say if she's prepared to understand these guidelines—that the minister might come and you won't get too many answers—without any hostility, I'd be prepared to move in that direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren, and then Mr. McTeague and Mr. Stanton.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be voting against this motion, too, for those reasons. I think it's clear that there's no sense in bringing the minister down. Mr. Cannis has made some fine points. I don't think it's our job to invite the industry minister, but if we as a committee decide to do that, I think that's a wonderful idea. I agree with Mr. McTeague that there are many things we could talk to him about and ask him. So at the risk of having a committee...and I think it was also suggested that Foreign Affairs was the more appropriate committee, that makes a whole lot more sense.

Let's continue to do the good work we're doing. Let's not have a committee tied up with what I really think is going to be a waste of time. Let's do something constructive. If we do invite him down, let's talk about things that we all need to talk about.