Industry Committee on Feb. 26th, 2008

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, but the point is that 45 days is the period within which he has the right to exercise his decision to say yes or no.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's correct.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

He could invoke a decision at any time during that period, so he could do it prior to appearing before the committee. It would be a motion requesting that he appear before committee before he makes that decision--not one that's calling on him to halt the sale until the study, but to ask him to appear before the committee to discuss this. Then I, or one of us, can propose a separate motion that we study this issue in the interim. For instance, having people like Barry Appleton on the trade side or Marc Garneau on the aerospace and competitiveness side would be a separate motion, but the key is to get him here before he has made a decision.

The wording I just proposed is less protectionist in tone and may have less capacity to make Canada look like a globophobic socialist Luddite banana republic. That's just my constructive--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is that intended to win over Ms. Nash to your point of view?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Well, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let me ask Ms. Nash to respond, but just to make sure I understand what you're doing, Mr. Brison, your motion is:

That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology request that the Minister of Industry, the Honourable Jim Prentice, appear before the committee to discuss the proposed sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. to Alliant Techsystems prior to an approval given under the Investment Canada Act.

Is that it? I am advised that the amendment is on the table; Mr. Brison has made the amendment.

Ms. Nash, do you want to respond to the amendment? Mr. Carrie will follow.

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

Yes. One of the key goals was of course to have the minister come here prior to his making a decision. As you know, I had proposed that he come within two weeks; that was amended to four to six weeks, so part of my concern is that a decision might be made prior to his coming here.

The second part of my concern is with the Investment Canada Act, restrictive as it is in terms of what the minister can actually say. I do believe it would be helpful for us to include in this motion.... I'm not looking for three months of hearings, but I do believe we ought to consult with a few people about the impact of this sale in a way that the minister may not at all be prepared to answer. What will it mean to our space program? What will it mean for jobs under the U.S. security regulations? What will it mean for our tax dollars under a bill passed by the previous government that had certain requirements on this business to return a benefit to Canadians?

I believe these are concerns that should be asked about and that we should know. If we're asking these questions after someone says it's too late and the decision is already made, then it's a futile exercise. That would be my concern. I'm not opposed to amending the wording, but it loses the additional information that I'm seeking.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

We'll go to Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We will be voting against this as well because it does set a precedent.

I just wanted to mention that Monsieur Vincent brought up a very important point. This is about a business transaction. If you have a private company and they want to sell that private company, can you imagine if we set a precedent that every time that occurs your company has to go in front of a committee and all the facts have to come out about this transaction before it goes through? Maybe the committee will say they don't like it or will start interfering with it. The government will start interfering with it. I just think this sets a really bad precedent, and we will be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

We'll have Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Carrie, I raised this issue, but I do not think that we should investigate every case. This case is really special, given the fact that it has to do with RADARSAT-2. I think that it is significant. In fact, this technology could let the Americans learn more of our secrets than we know about theirs and than we know about other persons. That being the case, it is really important to know what they want to do with this company. If this concerned a sock manufacturer, we would not raise any questions. However, we are dealing with high technology in this case. It could lead to some fallout.

As Ms. Nash said, this is a big issue. We invest substantial sums in a company, and as soon as it becomes viable and functional, we sell it. In other words, all the cutting-edge industries in which the government invests money could be sold to foreign countries as soon as they become viable. Canadian taxpayers, who paid for this, would be shortchanged. We must also look into that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Monsieur Vincent.

We'll go to Ms. Nash, please.

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

I just wanted to read something that was published on December 14. “Today the Conservative Government strengthened its ability to protect our North by launching a new high-tech satellite”. It goes on to say:

The satellite also sends a clear message to other nations of the world that, after thirteen years of Liberal neglect, Canada is once again serious about protecting our Arctic sovereignty.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is determined to protect Canada's sovereignty in the North. Investing in this innovative and powerful space technology is another way the Conservative Government is strengthening Canada's place as a leader on the world stage.

That was the Conservative press release about the launch of RADARSAT-2, this high-tech satellite that Canadians pay for. This satellite was commissioned to patrol the north; it was to protect our northern sovereignty. Surely the U.S. interests in the north are not completely coincident with Canada's interests in the north. And after trumpeting the launch of this technology, do we lose this? Do we get nothing from it? Does this now go to those who, maybe, perhaps, we were protecting our sovereignty from? These are all legitimate questions. I'm not sure the minister, with all due respect, is the expert in determining this.

I would like to know if others agree that the Conservative government is protecting our arctic sovereignty in light of the sale of this technology.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

We're missing the point. We're assuming that the minister is going to approve this sale. Ultimately, it is his decision. The point, and that's what Mr. Carrie is pointing out, is that we set a very dangerous precedent if anytime there is a proposal for one of our Canadian companies to be sold abroad, we, as a committee, would have the power to scrutinize and determine what the minister should do. That's the point.

Again, as I said, we don't know what the minister is going to do. Ultimately, it is his decision. So this is a very dangerous precedent, and I would urge members opposite--I don't know if I can convince you, Ms. Nash--and impress on the members opposite to vote this proposal down. I don't think it's wise.

Mr. Vincent, I don't think this is a good idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

I'm going to ask that we go to the amendment. To be clear, I will read the amendment by Mr. Brison:

That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology request that the Minister of Industry, the Honourable Jim Prentice, appear before this committee to discuss the proposed sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. to Alliant Techsystems prior to an approval of this proposed sale under the Investment Canada Act.

Ms. Nash.

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

Could I suggest an amendment to the amendment? If we take the wording that Mr. Brison has offered, in addition, can we take one day, as early as possible, maybe the first day under the space and technology study, to bring in witnesses who can discuss the impact of the sale of MDA?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, as we discussed this morning, we have a plan on the S and T study, which we're asking members to give input on. Certainly space policy in Canada will be studied under the S and T study. If you want that moved to the front...I don't know whether other members would object to that.

If we're doing a general S and T study, though, I wouldn't want to limit the discussion of space policy simply to the proposed sale. I'd want members to be able to ask questions about general broader space policy as well.

Ms. Nash.

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

If I remember, there was a proposal around the national space agency. There are other witnesses we would want to have later on. But since we're already doing a science and technology study, could we not take the first day to examine this particular issue? This is not the entire space policy, but it is a relevant piece, and the impact of the sale is something we should be aware of.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We've sent proposed subject areas to all members with respect to the study of science and technology. Based on recommendations from the researcher, our view was to start with general science policy and people like Dr. Alper and Peter Nicholson, who can give an overall framework approach to the committee. I would hesitate, as chair, to start with something very specific on a general study. I don't think that's the way to approach it. I would say that MDA could certainly be discussed under space policy, which can be discussed under science policy, but I would rather have the bigger framework people at the beginning to give us an overview and then narrow it down from there.

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

Excuse me, Chair, I know it's not productive to have a two-person back and forth, but would it be possible to delay our science and technology study by one day and amend Mr. Brison's proposal to include “and that on”, whatever that first day is, “witnesses be brought to the committee to comment on the proposed sale of MDA”?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, you can propose an amendment. Mr. Brison's amendment is on the floor. It has been accepted. What was your amendment to his?

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

My amendment is that we specify the date to invite relevant witnesses to comment on the proposed MDA sale.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll have the clerk read the subamendment.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Michelle Tittley]

Forgive me, Ms. Nash, but there were two versions that you gave, so I'll go with the second one.

Following the amendment of Mr. Brison, which would end “prior to an approval given under the Investment Canada Act”, your subamendment would read, “and that the committee invite relevant witnesses to provide comments on the proposed sale”.