Industry Committee on Feb. 26th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, just on the timeline—and I'm doing this as a rough sketch—if the application were made even in the break week, we're looking at perhaps seven or eight days going by. So there are about 35 or 37 days left. The minister will be here within that time period, on March 13, which will be within the 37-day period. Plus he could ask for the extension of another 30 days. I say this just for the benefit of members in terms of the timeline. We can endeavour to get the exact dates from the minister's office.

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

We'll go to Ms. Nash.

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

First of all, I just want to answer the question about what ATK produces. The description I was given is that it's a U.S. advanced weapons and space systems company. It's the largest ammunition producer in the U.S. and the world's leading manufacturer of solid rocket motor systems, including for Minuteman and Trident nuclear missiles. Other notable products include land mines, which are banned under international law—and which the U.S. has not signed—and depleted uranium shells and cluster bombs. So I think it's a reasonable question to ask, is this where our tax dollars are going, because this technology was only tested late last year? This technology was invested in and tested, and then immediately it's on the chopping block. That's the first thing.

The second thing is if you read the motion, the motion doesn't command the minister to do anything; it is recommending that the minister halt the proposed sale. In terms of whom we would bring here, yes, I would like to hear from the minister, but we've already been told that the minister is severely restricted in what he can say to this committee. So my question would be, what does someone who's familiar with our space program—

[An hon. member]

Marc Garneau.

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

Yes, what does Marc Garneau think about the sale of this technology? What will this mean for Canada's role in the space mission, of which we've been so proud every time a Canadian astronaut goes into space? We're enormously proud when that happens. What will this mean for the future of Canada's involvement in the space mission? What will it mean in terms of treaty compliance? What will it mean for the hundreds of millions of dollars that we've invested in this technology? Maybe the minister can answer some of these questions, but maybe a couple of other experts could supplement the information, so that we have a fuller understanding of what exactly is happening here. This doesn't mean that every time a widget plant gets sold to another company there would be these kinds of hearings. But goodness gracious, we're about to do a study on science and technology, and surely there's nothing more cutting-edge in terms of science and technology than space technology.

So my argument is that we've allotted this time for a study on science and technology, and we have this proposed sale, which is very significant. Canadians have an interest, not just because of the technology but also because we paid for the technology. Surely to goodness, we have the right to find out what exactly is happening here before it's already happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. McTeague, and then Monsieur Vincent, and then Mr. Brison.

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

Chair, I think we need a little bit more about the deal in terms of what this would have meant had there not been the merger or the acquisition and whether or not those jobs would actually have continued.

But the more specific question is perhaps to Mr. Carrie. I'm hoping that the minister will be here for more than one hour. It would seem that with one hour or one round of questions, there is usually very little time to explore any issue other than one or two. So I would ask Mr. Carrie to persuade his minister to be here for two hours, so that we could, at the very least, hear the minister give ample response, where he can, to the proposals and this particular issue.

I personally think that pending the minister's comments or what he has to say on this, the motion should wait here at least another week and a half or so. We've already proceeded with the first motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

We'll go to Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with Mr. McTeague. On the other hand, I would like you to tell me if in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the minister or the government could oppose the purchase of a private Canadian company by a private American company. Does the government have any power to intervene in such purchases or sales? Could our analysts answer this question?

As far as I am concerned, if I owned a company and if an American company wanted to purchase it, I would not be pleased if the Canadian government could decide whether I could go ahead with that or not.

[Dan Shaw]

I can't remember exactly the term in the WTO agreement or the NAFTA agreement, but basically the minister can stop a proposed sale. He has the power, and it will not violate NAFTA or our WTO agreements. I was prepared for this about two months ago and I remembered the exact term, but essentially he is free to stop this if he so chooses.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Does that answer your question?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci , monsieur Vincent.

Mr. Brison, please.

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

I want to have greater clarity on the timeline. The minister has until what date?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

He has 45 days, and then he can have an extension for another 30 days.

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

But 45 days ends on what date?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I can't give you the exact dates, but he was notified just before the break, which would be eight or ten days ago. So we're probably looking at around 35 days from today.

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

So he has 45 days, but he can act at any time within that. He can actually say “Go ahead” anytime.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

As the chair said, there's a net benefit to that test, but again, I don't think he'll be able to comment on what's going on anyway.

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

I think there's a way we can amend this, Ms. Nash. I share the desire that he appear before committee before this deal is approved, but instead of saying “to halt the proposed sale”, we could say that he “appear before the Standing Committee on Industry....”

Is it all right, Ms. Nash, if I propose a constructive amendment?

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

Sure. Let's hear it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

As a member of the committee, you can propose an amendment.

Do you have one ready?

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

It would be:

That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommend that the Minister of Industry appear before the committee to discuss the proposed sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates prior to his decision to approve the proposed sale under the Investment Canada Act.

I think that might allay some of—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Again, my first reaction as the chair is that it is quite close to the motion that was proposed by Ms. Nash and adopted previously by the committee, which is why he's appearing on March 13.

Ms. Nash may want to comment, but there's a fundamental difference between her having the committee recommend halting the proposed sale until a thorough hearing is done versus having the minister appear.

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

Did her last motion on his appearance actually ask him to appear prior to a decision being made? That's materially different, because in asking him to appear to discuss this without actually saying “prior to the sale”, he could appear two weeks after he said yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The motion said “appear”, and I believe there was a time period--within four to six weeks--so we--