Industry Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I just want to clarify what Mr. Vincent said. He asked why I am changing my viewpoint now.

Well, the reality is that we haven't changed our viewpoint at all. As Mr. Cannis said before, the committee has no role to review this. I thought we had agreed. The real question is why he's waiting 12 days before the actual deadline to make this come up.

We've talked about this in the past. The minister is coming, as requested. He will be here on Thursday.

As Madam Nash just said, we have that second hour, and that's what I'm trying to say: why don't we get the officials here for the second hour, and we can actually start the process, if this is where we want to go with it, to hear what they have to say? I'm in agreement with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Del Mastro, and then Mr. Brison.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking at the motion. I've listened to what the parliamentary secretary has had to say, and what we're really talking about is a contract that was entered into by the Government of Canada. I note that this motion talks about the impact of the proposed sale.

While I acknowledge that is something that should be considered, obviously the fundamentals of the original contract are something that the committee should know something about if it's going to render a decision over the sale or if it wants to conduct a study into the sale.

So I would strongly urge the members of the committee to get the departmental officials here to talk about the original contract so that we have a basis, moving forward, so that we can make an informed decision. I've been around an awful lot of contracts in my life, and I'll tell you, understanding the original basis of the contract is fundamental to making a decision about the terms and reference of that contract. I strongly urge committee members to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison.

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

Mr. Carrie asked the question why we didn't ask to extend this earlier. The fact is that last week's testimony, I think, created more questions than answers.

We had in fact invited the company to appear before the committee. They declined but were in fact in the room. They just didn't appear before our committee to demonstrate any respect for what we're doing here.

I think there are critical public policy considerations, and the question could be reversed as to why, after hearing what we heard last week, doesn't Mr. Carrie want the same level of scrutiny, process, and analysis that we do?

You can argue it both ways. The fact is that ministers do not appear before committees unaccompanied by public servants. The public servants will be with them. But it's the ministers and the ministers alone who really do have accountability to Parliament. So yes, we need the ministers, and yes, we need the time to afford and facilitate that. So yes, we need the 30 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I was just going to say that I didn't argue about this extension. You could have brought it up if this was a big issue. You had since January 8 to make it an issue. We could have called witnesses before yesterday to get people in front of the committee.

What we're dealing with now is an issue of timing. We have a deadline before us. It seems you're waiting to the very last minute, and it's not the role of the committee to ask for any type of extension or to tell the minister. We can ask for it, for sure. We can ask that he does that. But if we really wanted to get all these witnesses here, the ministers or their delegates, all I'm telling you is that from a logistics standpoint, for you to make the issue today, I just see that it is going to be difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible.

So maybe we can make an amendment. If you would like to insist on having the ministers, it may be difficult in the next couple of days to get them here, or during break week. We may not get any of them to be able to come. But if we say we'd have the ministers or their delegates come, I think there's quite a good possibility that we can have the delegates here quite promptly and at least get started with finding out the information that you would like before the deadline has expired.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Wait. Mr. Carrie, can you clarify that?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Maybe we should make an amendment.

Madam Nash, I believe, is suggesting that we have the ministers here. All I'm saying is that from a logistics standpoint, before the deadline, which we know is the March 22, if we have this motion go forward and insist on ministers only, we may not get anyone here. But if we ask for ministers or their delegates, there is a good likelihood that we could get somebody here very quickly.

Madam Nash even pointed out that on Thursday the minister is coming here. We might even be able to get those delegates here who could actually give us the details on the original contract that was signed back in 1998, and at least get started with it, because this is a real timing issue. That's what the issue is, a very tight timeline that we're up against right now, respectfully.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The proposal, then, is to use the second hour on Thursday to get officials from the relevant departments to start giving the committee some background for at least an hour.

Mr. Brison, did you want to respond to that?

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

I think we're ready to have a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash.

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

I would rather just deal with the original motion that Mr. Carrie put forward, and depending where we end up with the final version of the motion, I would hope that the final version incorporates a request for an extension in order to be able to have the testimony of the witnesses we're calling for.

It may well be that it's possible in that second hour—if we decide we do want to have ministers—that there is a minister who's available.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can I ask a specific question? Where it says “the Minister of Justice/Solicitor General”, do you want that minister still included?

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

Well, I read the part under the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act that pertains to that minister, and that was my rationale for requesting that he come to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Vincent. No?

Mr. Stanton, do you want to speak to this?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

This is perhaps a subamendment to Mr. Carrie's suggestion, that the amendment be changed to continue to reflect the removal of the Minister of Justice, but to read “Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Defence or their delegates or representatives appear before the committee”. So it's basically to stay as is but add “or their representatives”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That would not be an amendment of Mr. Carrie's amendment, because his amendment strikes “Minister of Justice” and “Solicitor General”, and it replaces wording in the original motion. I'm sorry, I can't rule that a subamendment.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're ready for the question on the amendment by Mr. Carrie.

All those in favour?

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Carrie, go ahead.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Could I move a subamendment, as Mr. Stanton said, on that amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You can, but I did ask Mr. Brison to take his subamendment and we were going to deal with his amendment after yours. So you can move that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'll do it afterwards, okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes.

So do you want to read Mr. Brison's amendment again? This would be at the end of the motion.

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

The amendment as proposed by Mr. Brison would follow in the last line, under the Investment Canada Act, and would continue:

and that the Committee strongly recommend that the Industry Minister exercise his right to extend the current forty-five (45) days period of the Investment Canada Act review by an additional thirty (30) days in order to enable a more thorough evaluation of the transaction particularly in terms of the net benefit test to Canada.