Industry Committee on Feb. 26th, 2008

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

Are we absolutely certain, Chair, in terms of the time, that the minister has received the formal notice?

Do we know what date that was, Colin?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't have that information.

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

I think we heard in the House of Commons--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't have that information.

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

We heard February 7. The minister said he had not, at that point, received this, but I'm just trying to figure out in my mind how much time has elapsed. If, for instance, it was on the 9th, then we've already used up some 12 to 14 days. I think it's very critical because the clock may already be ticking.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I can't give you the specific date when it was received, but it was just before the break.

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

So it was about ten days. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Eyking on the list and then Mr. Brison.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Nash, on this motion we're talking about Alliance Tech Systems, and this week is a week of commemorating land mines and land mining. Does this company produce land mines and cluster bombs? Am I correct?

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

Yes, it does.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

And that's one of the main reasons that we really want to look into selling to this company, correct?

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

It's the largest ammunition producer in the United States, and amongst its products are land mines, cluster bombs, and other weapons. I forget all of the array of weapons, but it is a huge weapons manufacturer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

I have Mr. Brison next on my list, followed by Madame Brunelle and Mr. Simard.

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

I think there are some real questions raised about whether or not the committee actually has the mandate to do this. I think what would be more constructive, and the parliamentary secretary could help us with this.... There has been one request already for the minister to appear before the committee on this.

I think we have to go back to the minister and get him to appear before committee immediately to discuss this. This is a time-sensitive issue. I understand the nature of the request in this motion to halt the proposed sale until there's been a full hearing into the sale by this committee. I don't want to create a precedent where the industry committee is used for every transaction or whereby that becomes a part within the merger and acquisition business, that people can assume that the industry committee is going to become engaged in every one of these questions.

But I would like to have the minister and public servants involved in the Investment Canada Act to appear before committee so that we have a better understanding of it. Frankly, I don't think we have, as members, enough understanding of the Investment Canada Act and its applicability in these cases and the power and capacity of the minister to act. I'd really like to have a better understanding of that, but I'm saying that based on the assumption and constructive hope or desire that the minister can appear quickly on this. I don't want this to be delayed beyond a potential transaction.

I really think this is a case—an important case—where we can learn more about the Investment Canada Act, how it works, and the minister's capacity to act in this case, while it's absolutely relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

I would just point out, as chair, that the minister is appearing on March 13 pursuant to a motion by Ms. Nash. He will be asked to discuss this sale, as well as, I believe, three other issues.

Also, we have a fairly full schedule. We have Dr. Carty coming on March 6 pursuant to a motion that you put forward to the committee. I don't know if you are aware of that timeline or not.

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

Carty is on what day?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

He is on March 6, and Minister Prentice is here on March 13. That may address your question, I don't know.

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

Surely, on the scheduling issue, we can accommodate the minister earlier. We can adjust our schedules if the minister is available earlier. Recognizing the time sensitivity in this case, I think it's absolutely reasonable that he....

The choice here is a motion that is quite prohibitive in nature without us having all the facts or the minister appearing at a reasonable time so that we can actually receive and garner greater information.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That may be what the committee will want to do, but I just want to point out to the committee that the motion to request the minister was made by Ms. Nash. It was amended. It was passed. The minister is appearing on March 13.

This motion is different. It may be on the same subject matter to an extent, but this is not a request for the minister to appear. It's a request recommending that the minister do something. Whether or not the member wants to propose an amendment, I don't know; it's at their discretion.

Let's go on to Madame Brunelle.

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

I would like to have some more details about this motion. I understand that the minister will have to wait for the committee to finish debating this issue before making a decision. Does this committee really have the power to keep the minister waiting? I do not really understand the meaning of this. The motion says “[...] until such time that a full hearing into the sale is conducted by this committee.” It is as if the committee had some power over the minister. I would like Ms. Nash to explain this to me.

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

Thank you, Madame Brunelle.

The concern about the minister appearing is that, first of all, by the time he appears, it might be too late to be able to have any impact on this sale. Second, we've already been told that he can come here, but he's not going to be able to answer any questions, or many questions.

Whether we can or can't compel him, I don't know, but I believe our responsibility as the industry committee is to ask the questions about whether or not this sale is in the best interests of Canadians. If the sale is a done deal, or pretty much a done deal, by the time the minister gets here, and our questions can have no impact, then it will be like trying to close the barn door after the horse is long gone.

I believe we have a responsibility to at least understand what this sale means. What does it mean to Canada's role in the space mission, for example? The Canadarm was Canada's contribution. That bought us the brownie points in the space mission that got our astronauts in space. What will this mean for future Canadian participation in the space mission? What will this mean for Canadian compliance in international treaties?

I don't expect that the minister can answer all these questions, but goodness gracious, somebody can. I don't think we need months of hearings, but we do need to understand and be in touch.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash, I think Madame Brunelle's questions are of a different nature. What she's asking is whether the committee can in fact halt the process.

We can get the researchers to comment, but to my understanding--I don't think we have a copy of the act here--if an application is made...and I think the parliamentary secretary indicated it was made before the break week, so some time has elapsed. The minister has a 45-day period and may ask for an extension of 30 days. The minister looks at it basically in terms of a net economic benefit test. As we discussed during your previous motion, the minister is very limited in what he can say with respect to an application he is considering.

So that's the information I can add with respect to the process. Dan might want to add something as well.

I don't know whether that answers your question, Madame Brunelle.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Good.

You're on the list, Ms. Nash, but I'll go to Mr. Simard first.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I was actually thinking exactly as Mr. Brison was. It seems to me, first of all, that it would be nice to have one meeting with the minister. I'm not sure it should be March 13, if we're to be discussing a whole bunch of issues then that might dilute this. But if that's the option we have, we have to get an assurance that the deal won't be done by that date, as we're obviously not going to do this after the fact.

I think the minister can benefit from this, as the industry committee is a sounding board. Although maybe he can't answer a lot of questions, he can surely listen to our questions and get some ideas of our concerns from our questions. So I think it would be a positive thing.

My first reaction when I heard about this deal was the technology transfer. This is one of our champions—and we don't have a lot of them. It seems to me that we should be able to express our opinions to the minister and that he should be willing to come to listen to what our concerns are. I think one meeting of two hours, or whatever, would do it. I don't think you want to do an elaborate study, as I don't think we have the time. I agree with Scott; I don't think it's our role to provide reports every time a decision like this has to be made. But I do think he should listen to us.